TOWNSHIP OF MONROE

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

January 27, 2022

Meeting called to order at 6:30 P. M. via Zoom (Web-meeting access information https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85081365970 Phone #1-312-626-6799 or 1-929-205-6099; Meeting ID 830 0657 7062 by Chairman Marc Gaffrey who led the salute to the Flag.

Mr. Marc Gaffrey read the Sunshine Law as follows: In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the following:

Posted on the Bulletin Board of the Office of the Township Clerk;

Posted on the Bulletin Boards within the Municipal Complex;                             

Printed in the Home News Tribune and Cranbury Press on January 3, 2020;             

Posted on the Monroe Township website; and                               

Sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice.

MEMBERS PRESENT (Virtually thru Zoom):           Mr. March Gaffrey, Mr. John Riggs, Mr. David Rothman, Mr. Andy Paluri, Mrs. Karen Polidoro, Ms. Roslyn Brodsky, Mr. Kevin McGowan, Councilman Terence Van Dzura and Mayor’s Representative Mr. Michael Markel.  Also present for the Board were Attorney Jerome Convery, Planner Mike Apte, Engineer Mark Rasimowicz and Director of Planning Mr. Joe Stroin.

MEMBERS ABSENT:       

NOMINATIONS:

Motion to appoint Mr. Marc Gaffrey as Planning Board Chairman made by Councilman Terence Van Dzura and seconded by Ms. Roslyn Brodsky and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present. (Nominations closed.)

Motion to appoint Mr. Andy Paluri as Planning Board Vice-Chairman made by Mr. David Rothman and seconded by Mr. John Riggs and passed unanimously by all members present. (Nominations closed.)

Motion to appoint Mr. Jerome Convery as Board Attorney made by Mr. Andy Paluri and seconded by Councilman Terence Van Dzura and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present. (Nominations closed.)

Motion to appoint Mr. Mark Rasimowicz of Center State Engineering as Board Engineer made by Mr. David Rothman and seconded by Mr. Kevin McGowman and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present. (Nominations closed.)

Motion to appoint Mr. Rob Russo of CME Associates as Board Planner made by Ms. Roslyn Brodsky and seconded by Councilman Terence Van Dzura orbattand passed with Mr. David Rothman voting no. (Nominations closed.)

Motion to appoint Ms. Laura Zalewski as Board Secretary made by Mr. David Rothman and seconded by Mr. Andy Paluri and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present. (Nominations closed.)

Motion to appoint Mr. Rob Russo of CME Associates as Administrative Officer made by Ms. Karen Polidoro and seconded by Mr. Andy Paluri and passed with Mr. David Rothman voting no.  (Nominations closed.)

Motion to adopt the Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board made by Mr. Andy Paluri and seconded by Mr. David Rothman and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Motion to adopt the dates for 2022 for the Planning Board, made by Mr. John Riggs and seconded by Ms. Karen Polidoro and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.      

The December 1, 2021 Minutes will be caried to the February meeting.

PB-1239-21                        Matrix 330 Applegarth, LLC; Request for Final Site Plan; Block 41, Lot 10.04; Located on Applegarth Road, in the OP (Office Professional) Zone        

At the request of the applicant carried without notice to the February 24, 2022 regular board meeting.

PB-1238-21                        Old Forge Properties, LLC; Request for Preliminary Major Subdivision; Block 106.50, Lots 11-12, 21-22; Block 106.51, Lots 1-12, 21-32; Block 106.03, Lots 9-15, 20-21, 26-34; Block 106.06, Lots 1-26, 33-48; Located on Old Forge Road; In the R-60 Residential Zone with cluster option to R-20 Zone

Attorney, Peter Klouser is with the firm Heilbrunn, Pape and they represent Old Forge Properties, LLC.  Just about a year ago, on January 28^th, this Board voted to approve preliminary major subdivision for this application under the cluster ordinance to create 12 lots.  11 residential lots and one detention basin lot.  The property, as Mr. Aly is going to describe shortly is located behind Old Forge Road on a paper street known as Clinton Avenue which will be improved as part of this application.  As he stated, the applicant utilized the cluster provisions in the ordinance so there are some other areas in the town which will be dedicated to the town as open space to protect areas around Manalapan Brook consistent with the ordinance and the Master Plan.

Since they were at the Board the last time, the applicant has worked to comply with the conditions of approval that can be complied with before you return for final and has worked to revise the plans consistent with your engineer and planner’s previous reports and will continue to do so.  The plan that is in front of the Board this evening for approval, the layout of the plan is substantially identical to what was approved by the Board.  There are no changes to the lot layout that was approved.  So, this is an application for final approval.  We’re asking the Board to confirm what was previously granted as preliminary with the understanding that we will continue to comply with your professional reports and any conditions of approval that this Board should place on the final approval and those that carry through for preliminary.

One witness this evening, who’s already sharing his screen, that’s Sharif Aly.  I believe he’s appeared in front of this Board before.  But if I could, I’d ask that Mr. Aly be sworn in and place his credentials on the record.  Mr. Aly was sworn in.  He provided legal notice and it seemed satisfactory.  Mr. Paluri stated that Mr. Aly has been in front of the Board for several years.  His credentials were accepted.

Sharif was asked to identify the property for the Board and the proposed layout.  He stated that the preliminary approval and the presentation that they had in red is the property.  The transfer will be whatever number of lots from here will be bringing into this area here. The two red areas here will be dedicated to the town for open space and that will be open space forever for the town.  That will be added to all the green and the light green that belongs to the town to fill in this area.  As well as this area right here, nearby Umberto, that will also be dedicated to the town as open space and green forever to be added to all the green that you see here that belongs to the town.  That will pretty much fulfill the Monroe Township Acquisition Open Space Program that will be in place for a long period of time.  So, the area that you see here, that big rectangular area, Clinton and Boxwood, that is the area where we are improving.  Even with that we are given about another five acres of green in this area right here and open space.  So, we are, if you bear with me for a second to get my screen back.  So here, everything will turn into green.  That’s the area right here that used to be red, this is the area used to be red, now it’s green, this is the area that will be given to the town.  Half of the five acres are totally wooded, the other half of it is open and then we have about less than an acre of a detention basin in this area.  Then you have the 11 lots that Mr. Klouser indicated in this area right here and is shown in red.  So, that’s 11 lots and the one open space.  5 acres in addition to the other parcels with the total open space to be given to the town about 11 acres.  That’s pretty much the application.  The 11 lots will be still in the same place, same and what you see is the final plat that will be filed at the County Clerk’s office indicating 11 lots and the area in the back of that that is the green space which will be given to the town.

Mr. Rasimowicz looked at his engineer’s report dated January 18, 2022 and for the record, does the applicant agree to meet all the comments in that review letter?  Yes, we’ll address all the items and we are agreeing to comply with all of them.  Most of the items are cleanup items, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to touch on a couple of the items, if I may with regard to my report 4C, in my review letter pertaining to near the intersection of Boxwood.  We had a concern at preliminary of a ponding issue on lot 17 and I’d like the applicant to speak about that if that’s been addressed. 

Mr. Rasimowicz is making a reference to this area right here.  The intersection, there is a single-family home here.  There was a driveway in this area.  Since we are tapping into Boxwood at this intersection here, the concern is that when we put the curb at the inlet of the low point, make sure that this area would have a positive runoff.  We went out there, as Amertech, and we on ground field elevation and we did confirm that our design will work and during construction will make assurance that it will work again and will make sure this area here be drained.  Mr. Rasimowicz asked that be noted on the plan that it be looked at upon construction.

Another item, 6C pertaining to that same piece of property. There’s an existing fence along Clinton Avenue.  We had discussions at preliminary of adding some trees along there, provide some evergreen buffering.  Mr. Aly met with Mr. Lavallo.  He’s our town tree expert and we walked the property, and we counted the trees and we’re going to have close to 90 trees to be replaced.  We’ll have plenty of trees and we will comply with the item of putting some evergreen or filling in the gaps of evergreen along this area.  So, that is not a problem at all.  We’re going to have a surplus of trees.  Mr. Rasimowicz again asks for a note on the plan that we can look at that during construction, as well.  Mr. Aly agrees.

The last one, item 6D pertaining to the intersection of Boxwood with regard to we had a resident at the last hearing with regard to landscaping and the concern of headlights coming out of Clinton Avenue onto lot 1.01 on the corner and 11.1 directly across.  Has that been addressed as far as providing some landscape buffering there from headlights?  Mr. Aly replied as he indicated, we will have a              to replace or plant whether we do it onsite or offsite so as far as negotiation and reaching out to the neighbors I’m aware of communication with the neighbor on the corner here but as far as the neighbor across the street here, I’ll leave that for Mr. Klouser to speak about.

Mr. Klouser:  Our client directly reached out via correspondence to that neighbor that Mr. Rasimowicz is referencing in two different letters which I’ve shared with the Board attorney.  We haven’t received a response but if a similar note can be added to the plan, the applicant’s commitment to create any landscaping on their property in the field is acceptable and that remains.

Mr. Rasimowicz:  That would be acceptable to me, a note on the plan at my direction, or subject to the approval of myself.  Mr. Klouser replied “Yes”.  If the homeowners are here, I’m sure they may speak about it.  That’s really it, Mr. Chairman.  They’ve agreed to the other items.  I did want to touch on those important points because we did have input from the public on it.  Nothing further.  They are in for final.

Any members of the Board wish to ask Mr. Aly questions?

Karen Polidoro has a couple of questions for Mr. Aly.  In item #7B of the engineer of Mark Rasimowicz’s letter, there’s a site environmental site assessment it just requests a copy of that report be provided to the Environmental Commission also for review.  Mr. Aly:  Will do.

A quick question about the landscaping on Clinton Avenue.  I thought that we were also going to put trees on the south side.  I believe it’s south of Clinton Avenue on both sides of Clinton Avenue to take care of the residents on both intersection of Boxwood Drive, above and below, for lack of a better term, of the Clinton Avenue, not just on the north side.  Is that true?  Mr. Aly:  I don’t recall.  I may be wrong.  I was talking about putting landscaping along this strip of land.  It’s only about like 10 feet from the back of the curb to the right of way.  Can we put some planting?  Yes.  Maybe some evergreen because we don’t want to damage the curb, we don’t want to damage the pavement. Ultimately, the town will be taking over.  We’ll be having maintenance nightmares.  We prefer not to. But I’ll leave it to the Board members and Mr.  Rasimowicz.  If he elected to do that, we could do that. That’s not a problem.  She was referencing more of the three lots or so from Boxwood Drive in, closer to Boxwood Drive, those three larger ones.  The three lots here are fully wooded.  That back area is fully wooded so you don’t have to worry about that.  OK, there’s no residence on that.  No, most of the residences are facing Old Forge Road.  That back area, when you go out there, you’ll see it’s all wooded.  

Mr. Rasimowicz:  Sharif, are we providing sidewalks on that southern side, or is that a waiver that was granted?  Mr. Aly:  We asked to provide a sidewalk along the north all the way around the cul-de-sac but on the south side here I guess we would be to the bank, to the sidewalk bank.  That’s consistent with the preliminary approval conditions.  The contributions will be made for the south side.  Mr. Rasimowicz:  So, I’d have to check.  I believe Karen’s right.  There was some discussion about landscaping over there.  We may have left it open-ended.  Street trees would certainly not be out of the norm to provide along that side.  Those lots are very deep and something along the line of street trees similar to what you have on the side with the homes.  We just have to see how we can set that back off of the curb line.  Mr. Aly:  Yes.  We could do that and maybe we’ll put a note on the plan if we have the ability to do that because there is a lot of shade in that area and there is a lot of trees.  Definitely.  We’re going to have about somewhere between 80 to 90 trees that we need to plant onsite somewhere.  Mr. Rasimowicz:  I would include our planner with that as well for us to meet with and tie in Gary also to help with the species of the trees.  We usually see Mr. Convery’s resolutions saying the Board’s staff and professionals and that’s what we would expect to see. 

Any other questions or comments from members the Board?

(Unknown speaker.) Staying on the topic of the trees, how much total number of trees approximately that this development is going to displace?  Mr. Aly:  Amertech came up with 81 trees to be removed. The total number of trees to be replaced is 240 trees.  So far, we are planting 159 so we still have a surplus of 81 trees to be planted.  What Mr. Rasimowicz was talking about was is that through some trees in this area here to fill in the gap and give some privacy to the homeowner.  What Karen is talking about is putting some trees along here and we can do that when we are totally done with construction.  So, yes, we will have a bunch of trees.  Keep in mind, we also have out parcels that will be given to the town as open space.  We can plant trees there, too.  So, we do have the room and we do have the trees so we could do that. 

His question really is that what you are removing, you are replacing within the township somewhere into a neighborhood?  Mr. Aly:  Here’s the permit how it was issued by the town.  Gary will be issuing a letter.  Gary may pump the number up a little bit too.  He hasn’t come up with his own calculation.  He has a way of calculating more trees than Amertech.  So, the way it’s done is that the Shade Tree Commission will issue a permit and will call the clients in.  You have two choices.  You pay to the tree bank so much money or you can plant the trees onsite somewhere else in town.  You give the client the choices of doing that.  He signs the paper, agrees to one of the items and then that’s it.  He’s on the hook.  It’s for the tree removal or replacement permit.  So, the permit will be in town.  The township engineer will get a copy of that as well as the construction Department gets a copy of that. 

The second question he has is the detention basin that is showing there, once the development takes place, that detention basin is going to be maintained by the Township?  Correct?  Mr. Aly:  All of the detention basins in town with the exception of adult communities or planned communities, they all go to the town, the same as the roadways.  Question to Mr. Rasimowicz:  Do we have an easy access to maintain that from Clinton Avenue because that is a cul-de-sac and the other street might not have been dedicated.           

Mr. Rasimowicz:  There was a comment in the letter to expand the width of the driveway to get better access into there.  I asked for some modifications, a gate near the cul-de-sac to limit people going down the access road to the basin and also a turn around they’re going to provide down there.  The last question is for the counsel.  Mr.  Klouser, you mentioned that the application is substantially the same.  Not to play with the words.  Mr. Klouser:  I shouldn’t have said that.  What Mr. Rasimowicz should have said is that he's asked that the basin access be widened.  Things like that, that change.  But the layout of the all the lots in the subdivision is exactly the same.  It’s just some of those little tweaks like that.  The engineering tweaks that we don’t see or understand.  Thank you very much.

Any other questions from the Board?

Mica Apte has a couple of follow up questions.  Mr. Aly:  have you had a chance to review CME’s December 8^th memo?  Yes.  And most of the items were complying.  There were a few items that we needed compliance on but I’m assuming that would be easy to comply with such as providing tree removal and replacement plan an all that?  You will be agreeing with that?  Mr. Aly:  Yes, yes.  As I mentioned before, the plan was already provided to Gary Lovallo.  Gary and I went out there and walked the site.  So, we’ll definitely provide you with a copy of the plan.  I’m just waiting for Mr. Lovallo to get back to me with his final say.  Thank you.  The applicant has mostly provided most with the compliance items that we needed. 

No one else from the Board wished to be heard.  Mr. Klouser:  It is a final application.  It is consistent with the preliminary approval that was granted by the Board and the applicant agrees to comply with the conditions of your professional reports and any open conditions of preliminary approval.

Public Portion

Michele Arminio was sworn in.  Her question is regarding the properties that are going to be dedicated to the township.  Mr. Aly, in his testimony said that they would be forever green and preserved forever.  Is that going to be put in the deed or is the township also going to be accepting them also as land for municipal use because there’s a difference.  Mr. Rasimowicz replied in accordance with our ordinance, that would be dedicated for municipal use and that goes to the council.  Ms. Arminio:  Then that testimony of Mr. Aly should be corrected because that’s very misleading to think that it’s going to be forever green and preserved forever as open space.  There’s a big distinction and you can tell.  For example, on Spotswood Englishtown Road and the new Matchaponix, I think they’re using that land that was dedicated as open space for municipal use.  We’ve had things built on open space that they put land for municipal use.  So, I believe that testimony is inaccurate.   Michelle, let me add a comment.  Both the report from CME as well as Mr. Rasimowicz’ s report refers to the dedication if the land is for municipal purposes.  Ms. Arminio:  Yes, but if people are looking who are just getting on and hearing the testimony that’s supposed to be accurate and truthful.  It implies that that land is going to stay open and not built on.  When you have land as a municipal use as a caveat, that means it can be, and again using Mr. Aly’s words, forever green.  He says that it fulfills the acquisition of open space program.  I’ve been listening to this for a long time and certainly I think for people that are just coming on board, they see open space as exactly that, open space but when you connect it with land for municipal use, there is a potential for it to be built on and certainly this township has a history of doing that.  I would ask that the minutes show that it is not really preserved as green.  Because he made it specifically, he said green.  If you build a building on it or use it for something else, that’s not green.  She’d like somebody to answer that and change the testimony.

My second question is it looks very much like the properties that are being dedicated to the township are also under the wetlands.  There is a lot of wetlands bordering, for instance.  It looks like on the map, the wetlands are going across Umberto and hitting a few of the maps.  I can’t see it very well, but it looks like lot 6, 7, 8 and maybe 9.  So those lots have a lot of wetlands on them.  They probably wouldn’t be able to be built on.  Were they used to get a yield for this cluster zoning?  Were those lots used to calculate the yield?  That was addressed during preliminary.  We’re not going to revisit it now.  Ms. Arminio:  Well, this is a hearing for this now, sir.  I would like the answer.  If I wasn’t available for this, can you answer it?  What would be the harm in that?  The approval utilizing the cluster provisions was already reviewed and approved by this Board.  Ms. Arminio:  So, you decline to answer the question?  Those are my responses, Mr. Chair.  It was approved by the Board already.  Ms. Arminio:  Mr. Chair, I would ask that you direct the applicant to answer the question for the public.  This is a public hearing sir.  It’s up to the applicant to determine what testimony he wishes to bring before the Board.  This Board does not dictate to the witnesses as to what they should say.  The consistency with your ordinance and the yield that was produced as a result of the sending properties was previously approved by this Board.  Ms. Arminio:  so, let me rephrase the question.  On your map, does lot 6, 7 8 and 9 have wetlands on it?  Mr. Rasimowicz:  Michelle, can you clarify what lots you are looking at as far as block?  You have several blocks out here.  Ms. Arminio:  It’s the block.  Well, it’s hard to see.  I think it’s block 106.51.  It’s the properties behind the actual development.  I think it’s 6, 7, 8 and 9.  Mr. Rasimowicz:  Mr. Chairman, if you want me to respond or the applicant?  Mr. Rasimowicz, if you’d like to add something and then if Mr. Klouser wants to follow up.  Mr. Rasimowicz:  I think frankly it’s straightforward.  Yes, those properties are part of the application and they were part of the yield map.  Ms. Arminio:  And they have wetlands on them.  I’m just clarifying because I’m not an engineer.  So, I’m looking at the applicant’s final plat major subdivision Hidden Meadows.  Mr. Rasimowicz:  Yes, they have wetlands on the rear 50 to 70 feet based on the plan and the lots were 400 foot deep and they were the rear part of the lot.

Ms. Arminio:  Same question on the properties that are going into well open space land for municipal use off of Franklin, Duane and Reed.  There is also wetlands on those properties as well.  And I again, can you confirm that, sir.  It looks like it crossed 3 lots.  Block 106.02, Block 106.03 and Block 106.06.  I guess I need new glasses.  Mr. Rasimowicz:  Mr. Chairman, in an effort to move it along, yes, based on their maps, there is wetlands in the rear of those properties.

One final question, there looks like in reading some of your materials, it looks like there is going to be easements.  Will those easements be on the properties that will be constructed, the houses, conservation easements?  Are there any conservation easements on the actual properties under construction?  Mr. Aly:  Mark, do you want me to answer some of the questions?  Mr. Klouser, would you allow me to answer some questions?  Mr. Klouser:  Yes.  In reference to the easements, the easement that was made reference to in Mr. Rasimowicz’ s review letter, a storm pipe easement, below the ground.  There is no conservation easement.  Each one of these lots here contain no wetlands, no flood hazard, no conservation easements.  Ms. Arminio:  OK, thank you.  I’m satisfied with that answer.  Mr. Chairman, I’d like my comments to be noted in the minutes, please?  Noted.  Thank you, Michelle for contributing. 

No other comments from the public.  Motion to close the public portion.  All in favor.

Mr. Klouser:  I’ve been in front of this Board for a long time and in every Board I’ve every been in front of, Michael’s never been difficult.  Your ordinance requires a great deal of calculations with regard to the wetlands and the developable area.  Those were all vetted and accomplished through the preliminary approval.  So, it was not a simple answer that yes, they do or do not contain wetlands.  That issue was resolved and it was resolved very thoroughly by your professionals and more than whether there is or is not wetlands.  I just want the Board to understand my reasoning for the presentation and the direction.  I thank Mr. Rasimowicz and Mr. Aly for their comments.  This is a final approval consistent with the preliminary approval that was previously granted by the Board and I indicated rather thoroughly that by your professionals, Mr. Aly and myself remain available for any further questions that the Board or your professionals may have otherwise I would ask that the Board act favorably on the application as testified to this evening and the conditions that were agreed to by the applicant this evening. 

Mr. Chairman, I have one question if I could for Mr. Rasimowicz, please.  Mark, can you confirm that the fact that even though there might be certain lots that contain wetlands on both those are being transferred to the town and those that are in the area of the development?  Nevertheless, the application is in compliance with our ordinances that would be appropriate in this case.  Mr. Rasimowicz:  Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, there are no wetlands on the properties that are being developed with homes.  There are no wetlands on the single-family lots.  There are wetlands on the land that’s being dedicated to the town.  It is consistent with our ordinance.  It was vetted, as Mr. Klouser said during preliminary with yield maps, demonstrating storm water management, demonstrating wetlands and demonstrating the number of buildable lots that were transferred into using the cluster ordinance over to Clinton.  When we use the language for the transfer of the deed for other municipal purposes, is that consistent with the ordinance also?  Mr. Rasimowicz:  It is consistent with the ordinance.  A stormwater basin is on a portion of the of the lot that’s being dedicated.  That is a municipal purpose.  There are surrounding lands in this area that are dedicated and already under the town’s ownership for municipal purposes.  There are some that are open space.  So, yes, it is consistent with our ordinance.  And the attention being that it remain open space, though, primarily.  I don’t have a crystal ball but this is an area that is adjacent to streams.  It’s wooded.  It’s not off of a main road.  It is an area that I don’t foresee anything being built on.  But it is for municipal purposes.  And again, a basin is a municipal purpose.  I have no other questions.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you Mr. Rasimowicz.

If there is nothing further, is there a motion on the application?  Motion.  Second.  Roll Call.

Mr. Riggs:  All the lands in that area of Forge Road that are subject of the application tonight, are all part of the township’s master plan as an acquisition list.  They weren’t brought to us by the developer.   They have existed on our acquisition list including the pieces they’re building on.  Because, we have not yet acquired them, they have the right to build.  So, these are out out of the blue.  This is part of our long-term master plan for open space acquisition and it’s primarily because it’s in a riparian area.  It’s next to the brook so that’s your logic for it.

No further comments.

Motion to approve made by Councilman Terence Van Dzura and seconded by Ms., Roslyn Brodsky and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

MEMORIALIZATION

(No resolutions to be adopted.)

PUBLIC PORTION

Michele Arminio wished to be heard. 9 Nathaniel St.  I would ask the Planning Board to reconsider, especially in light of if I see Mr. McGowan there, who is part of the new master plan committee.  I would ask this Planning Board to consider and recommend removing, especially for some lots and land development the use of the word municipal use from open space.  I think it’s a misuse of that situation and I know that municipalities like to have control over land and like to be able to build and construct on these properties.  But, in light of what’s going on in our world and climate change and all that, the most green we could keep our properties, the better for us going into the future.  So, I ask that this Board, you can make recommendations to the council, who would of course, change the ordinances.  So, especially, even if you are not willing to do it for all the ordinances, at least for certain lands that should be kept open space regardless to remove that language of land for municipal use.  And maybe even review the cluster zoning provision and see that has always been my contention and I think one can make a good argument of it, even if you’re not a planner or an engineer, like I am not that when they do yields for cluster zoning or anything like that, the land that they count is very often not really buildable and it’s not suitable for building but they use it in the calculation for yield and what that does is create smaller lots, more density and higher development for our community.  So, I would ask this Board and the professionals to consider those things going forward and our new master plan to have at least that discussion.  Thank you.

No other comments from the public.  Public portion closed.

Councilman Van Dzura:  In response to Ms. Arminio’s comments, maybe Mr. Convery can comment on this.  It’s my understanding the Planning Board can only act in accordance with the ordinances as they currently exist, whether it be respect to the language or whatever it may be.  Any changes to the ordinance would have to come from the town council.  I don’t think that what she’s asking for is something that the Planning Board has the authority to do unless I’m mistaken.  Jerry, if I’m wrong, please feel free to correct me.  Any ordinance change has to be by the township council with two readings.  An introduction and then the second reading.  This Planning Board cannot change an ordinance.  They can make a recommendation under State law, but it doesn’t make the change.  The change is made in an ordinance by the town counsel.

So, my point is, what Ms. Arminio is asking the Planning Board is not something it has the power to do.  Correct?  Correct, and that is change the ordinance.  And also, I want to comment, I do not understand at all and I object to the reference that Mr. McGowen be removed because he might be a member of the master plan committee.  I’m chairman of the master plan committee.  I don’t have any idea what that would have to do with this particular hearing today.  So, I want to note my objection to the comments that were made.

Mr. Chairman, I think I probably misheard but maybe I heard it slightly different than the councilman.  I thought the differences made by Ms. Arminio is that in calculating the yield for cluster development don’t take non-buildable area into consideration and that should be included in the master plan as an ordinance or as a criteria.  That’s how I understood it.  That was a later comment that she made.  I’m not talking about that. 

Laura:  I think she noted that Kevin is part of the master plan and then she proceeded to say she wanted something removed.  Not Kevin removed, she wanted the ordinance removed.  That’s different.  Kevin:  Just to add to Laura, I think Ms. Arminio was looking for the word municipal use to be removed.  I think she was just noting that.  Fair enough.   I apologize if I misinterpreted that part of that.  I’m sorry if I did, Michelle.  Thank you.

We do have Michelle raising her hand again.  We’ll let Michelle be heard.  Ms. Arminio, if you can briefly comment please.  I just want to say Mr. Van Dzura’s characterization was completely wrong.  It was misunderstood.  It was actually complementary to Mr. McGowan that he is on the master plan committee.  I’m very pleased about that.  I work collaboratively with him.  Mr. VanDzura, what I did say, as Mr. Convery pointed out, I asked consideration for the Planning Board to recommend to the township council ordinances changes.  I’m very clear about how that works. So, please listen to the public.  Oh, I do listen Ms. Arminio.  I may have not heard you what it sounded like you said.  But, I thank everyone else for the correction.  I appreciate it.  Thank you.  I’m sorry that I misinterpreted the part about Mr. McGowan who I also agree is also a big help with the master plan.  Thank you, Ms. Arminio.

A motion to adjourn at 7:40 p.m. made by Mr. Andy Paluri and seconded by Ms. Roslyn Brodsky and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Respectfully submitted,

LAURA ZALEWSKI

PLANNING BOARD SECRETARY