WEST AMWELL TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

March 15, 2005

The West Amwell Township Planning Board meeting was called to order at 7:30PM by

Chairman Jeff Ent followed by the Flag salute. Chairman Ent stated the meeting has been property advertised and is being held in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. The meeting was taped and copy of tape is on file. A joint discussion was held with members of the Township Committee and Cross Acceptance Committee as outlined in the minutes.

ATTENDANCE:

Roll call on attendance: Dale-present, Meader-present, Molnar-present, Perri-present, Pfeiffer-present, Shute-present, Smith-present, VanDerVeen-present, Ent-present.

Late arrival: (after approval of 12/21/04 minutes) Nancy Palladino;

Late arrival: (after approval of 2/15/05 minutes) Alexander Greenwood

Professionals Present: William Shurts, Attorney; Robert Clerico, Engineer;

Anthony Mercantante, Planner

Minutes of December 21, 2004 – Secretary Griffiths provided an amended version of the minutes reflecting corrections to the roll call votes under approval of minutes for October 25, 2004, and November 16, 2004, as confirmed by the taped record of the 12/21/04 meeting. Additional correction was made to page 3 as requested by Ms. Palladino to replace “received” with “awarded”. Motion to approve the minutes with corrections was made by Perri with a second by VanDerVeen. Roll call: Dale-aye, Meader-abstain, Perri-aye, Shute-aye, Smith-aye, VanDerVeen-aye, Ent-aye. (Ineligible to vote: Molnar, Pfeiffer)

Minutes of February 15, 2005 - It was noted by Secretary Griffiths that changes to the January 15, 2005 minutes as recommended at the January meeting were made, however, upon review of the meeting tape, it was determined that under Page 2 under Resolutions – Titus, Ms. Palladino voted in favor of the adoption of the resolution. Ms. Palladino confirmed for the record that she was in fact ineligible to act on the resolution and the minutes should be changed to reflect same. Ms. VanDerVeen requested an amendment to language on page 3, “Hunterdon County Cross Accceptance” to read as follows: “…figures projected by the NJTPA will have an lower impact on COAH plans.” In response to Mr. Pfeiffer’s request at the February meeting to have verbatim record entered into the minutes from the January meeting regarding the Informal Review/MacDade application, Secretary Griffiths advised that her explanation at that meeting indicating that verbatim record is not included in minutes was supported by Chairman Ent at the February meeting. Motion to approve the minutes with the aforementioned change was made by Smith with a second by Dale. Roll call: Dale-aye, Meader-abstain, Molnar-aye, Palladino-aye, Perri-aye, Pfeiffer-aye, Shute-abstain, Smith-aye, VanDerVeen-abstain, Ent-aye.

Bill List – March 15, 2005 – Motion to approve bill list as presented and attached hereto as Appendix 1 was made by Palladino with a second by Smith. Motion carried on roll call vote – all ayes. Clarification was made that the bill submitted by Planner Mercantante (not included on the bill list ) for discussions held with Attorney Phil Faherty and Special Planner Shirley Bishop reference the COAH certification extension process would be billed to the Township and not through the Planning Board.

It was brought to the Board’s attention by Ms. Palladino that a portion of the taped recording of this joint meeting is missing. The Township Committee was advised of the situation during the latter part of 2004 and the issue was supposed to have been forwarded to the attention of the Planning Board at that time. It was the consensus of the Board members that the issue has never been presented to the Board until this time. It was further clarified that there are three tapes on file from the October 19, 2004, meeting, one of which is blank (tape 2); not missing.

Ms. Catherine Urbanski of Rocktown-Lambertville Rd. addressed the Board regarding this matter. Ms.Urbanski explained that she requested copies of the tapes through OPRA procedures and discovered that tape 2 is blank and the other tapes appear to have missing testimony which should have included discussions that took place regarding the sewer services areas and transfer of development rights. It is Ms. Urbanski’s contention that the minutes of this meeting do not accurately reflect the decisions made by the

Township at the meeting, specifically wherein the Committee pledged not to enact any TDR ordinance until the sewer service area has been removed.

Ms. Urbanski further advised she had also filed a complaint with the Government Records Council in regard to violation of procedures followed in procuring the copies of the tapes under the OPRA law. Township Clerk Lora Olsen (former Deputy Clerk) provided the Board with an overview of the procedures that were followed by her in duplicating and providing copies of the tapes to Ms. Urbanski. Ms. Olsen confirmed that upon duplicating the tapes for Ms. Urbanski, it was determined that Tape 2 is blank. It was noted by Mr. Pfeiffer that in addition to the discrepancy of the missing verbatim record on the tapes, it is unclear as to whether the minutes were approved, which version of the October 19, 2004, minutes were approved whereas he is in receipt of various versions, and the roll call votes included during these discussions are inaccurate. The minutes of this meeting were compiled jointly by then Clerk Betty Jane Hunt and Planning Board Secretary Catherine Park.

Chairman Ent requested that Ms. Urbanski submit a letter to the Planning Board entailing specifically what information she is seeking. Chairman Ent also requested Mayor Palladino’s assistance in having the Township Committee make a formal request to the former Clerk and Planning Board Secretary for the purpose of joining a subcommittee as recommended by this Board to address all of the issues brought forth. Chairman Ent designated the following individuals to also serve on the subcommittee: Jeff Ent, Sean Pfeiffer, and Secretary Donna Griffiths. Mayor Palladino designated Township Committeeman Tom Molnar to serve on the subcommittee which will be formally confirmed at the Township Committee meeting tomorrow evening.

NEW BUSINESS:

Letter dated February 25, 2005, from Steven Lang was received and distributed to Board. Mr. Lang is requesting 30 day extension for filing of deeds. Motion to grant the 30 day extension was made by Perri with a second by Smith contingent upon confirmation that this additional extension is permissible. Roll call: Dale-aye, Meader-naye, Molnar-aye, Palladino-aye, Perri-aye, Shute-aye, Smith-aye, VanDerVeen-naye, Ent-aye. Attorney Shurts will confirm the granting of the extension with Mr. Lang.

A copy of the draft Stormwater Management Plan dated March 2005 was provided to the Board. Ron Shapella, representative of the stormwater management subcommittee, appeared before the Board. Mr. Shapella provided an overview of the plan as prepared by the subcommittee members along with Princeton Hydro, LLC. Mr. Shapella advised that various maps are to be included in the plan to include special water protection areas and soil service maps. Mr. Shapella referenced the inclusion of minimum goals as required by the State in addition to the inclusion of a second set of goals as recommended by the subcommittee to ensure a greater level of protection for environmentally sensitive areas of the Township that could be affected by stormwater. Mr. Shapella advised that the Township has had limited development and stormwater problems thus far but we need to set strict regulations for future development in order to maintain our high quality of streams and environmentally sensitive areas. In regard to concerns by the Board regarding existing development restrictions, it was suggested that a remediation/mitigation plan element be incorporated into the plan at some future date. The 20 BMP’s (Best Management Principles) included in the plan outline measures that can be done with existing problems that may occur. It was noted that these rules don’t affect farming in any way. It was also stated that the County has agreed to develop and provide a build-out analysis. The projected population figures included in the plan are based on the US census data provided from the County. It was suggested by Planner Mercantante that language be incorporated requesting that some type of legislation and/ or regulations be established to provide the municipality with some sort of funding or ability to charge fees for future maintenance responsibilities that will ultimately be the responsibility of the municipality. It was requested that any further comments or recommended changes to the plan by the Board be forwarded to the subcommittee within the next week

Recommended minor changes will be incorporated and the draft plan will be forwarded to the County for any comments they may have before the scheduled public hearing. Mr. Shapella will advise Secretary Griffiths as to whether or not the public hearing should be scheduled for the next meeting of the Board (April 19^{th) so that appropriate notice may be made.}

STREAM CORRIDOR ORDINANCE DRAFT – ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION – Carried to next meeting.

Fulper Escrow Fees - Secretary Griffiths advised that she has met with Mr. and Mrs. Fulper regarding the escrow account status of the GDP application and subsequent billing. The prior billing has been reviewed by Secretary Griffiths with the assistance of Attorney Shurts, and it has been determined that the Fulper escrow account has been charged for all review work; prior to and subsequent to the GDP approval. Secretary Griffiths is in the process of determining the total charges that were billed which should not have been billed to the Fulpers’ escrow account, will confirm same with them, and report back to the Board with recommendations for reimbursement of the charges.

Notice of seminar being held for the “Overview of the Municipal Land Use Law” was received.

Hunterdon County Planning Board, Development Review Committee, agendas were received.

Memorandum dated February 17, 2005, from Clerk Lora Olsen regarding additional

2005 Budget Cuts was received and distributed to Board members.

A joint meeting was held with the Township Committee and Cross Acceptance Committee to discuss the adoption of the County cross acceptance report as it relates to West Amwell Township and to determine if a dissenting report is needed Notice of the joint meeting was provided by Township Clerk Lora Olsen on behalf of the Township Committee. Township Committee members present: Nancy Palladino, Gary Bleacher, Tom Molnar. Also present was Township Clerk Lora Olsen. The joint meeting commenced at 9:10 PM. Ms. Palladino recused herself due to the fact that she is serving on the County negotiating team.

Letter dated February 28, 2005, from County Planning Board Director Caroline Armstrong regarding the County Adoption of Cross-Acceptance Report; Important Information about State Plan Policy Map Changes was received and distributed. The most notable change as outlined in Director Armstrong’s letter is the restoration of Planning Area 4 (Rural Planning Area) to the State Plan Policy Map so that it reflects Planning Area 4 as shown on the April, 2004 Preliminary State Plan Policy Map in response to public hearing input. Also distributed for review by Ms. Palladino before her recuse was Resolution #04-116 from the BOCF assigning her to negotiate the County’s adopted position, a final draft map (#5) depicting the state vs. county map, a map of County farmland and open space, and a copy of Snydertown/Haymarket Historic District Historic Map dated 12/97. Ms. Palladino advised that we have until March 30, 2005, to negotiate our position with the County regarding the changes.

The Cross Acceptance Committee submitted letter dated March 11, 2005, re: West Amwell Township’s Proposed Planning Area Changes to Hunterdon County’s Proposed State Plan Policy Map. Also provided by Mr. Shute of the Cross Acceptance Committee was: Revised New Jersey State Planning Areas for West Amwell (2004) Map; Proposed State Planning Areas (3/3/05) map; and Planning Area Boundaries (3/15/05) Map entailing ADA Boundaries. Mr. Shute and Mr. Bleacher provided an overview of the effects of the revisions to the county map on behalf of the Cross Acceptance Committee as outlined in their letter of 3/11/05:

The change now bisects the proposed PA5 along the Sourland Ridge near Goat Hill with a section of PA4. This section of PA4 isolated a large portion of the Goat Hill area that is proposed to be PA5, but because the Goat Hill area was not at least one square mile as required for Planning Areas, the proposed map reverted that section to PA4B. The Cross Acceptance Committee recommends that the proposed PA5 as delineated in the County’s Preliminary Draft Cross Acceptance Report dated 1/13/05, be

retained. This would be consistent with our original plan presented to the County. The Cross Acceptance Committee also recommends that the remainder of the township which is similar in characteristics be grouped into a single Planning Area which is the most conservative approach as it relates to the farmers, and the entire area of the township outside of the PA5 be classified as PA4. In regard to the municipalities’ ability to expand the PA4 within the boundaries of the local ADA, the Committee recommends that all the area within the ADA (but not in the PA5) be proposed as PA4. If we go beyond the ADA, we will have to file a dissenting report.

The Cross Acceptance Committee concurs with the County’s decision to restore Planning Area 4 in support of the concerns raised by the agricultural community relating to possible ramifications to farmland preservation funding and environmental restrictions that may be imposed to areas designated as Planning Area 4B. In addition, the Cross Acceptance Committee supports the county’s decision to remove the proposed Delaware River SRA from the proposed policy map until the boundaries and utility of this SRA are studied further.

Discussion ensued to include: whether the PA5 area should be retained to be consistent with our original plan presented to the County; whether or not the PA4 designation will give more agricultural and priority of funding support; what implications/regulations there will be, if any, to farming based on the designation; consistency with the master plan should be maintained; whether the master plan could be jeopardized if the classification was changed; the effect of a rural designation as opposed to environmentally sensitive designation in relation to environmentally sensitive areas within the Township (a map was presented showing the protected lands within the Township) whereas part of the rationale for density changes in the master plan was due to environmentally sensitive issues; whether two classes should be considered (4 & 4B).

After considerable discussion, it was the consensus that PA5 should remain as presented in the original plan to the County. Motion was made by Shute to retain the PA5 designation as agreed to on October 25, 2004, and as shown on the 2004 Preliminary State Plan Policy Map prepared by Hunterdon County Planning Board, January 2005. Motion was seconded by Pfeiffer. Roll call: Dale-aye, Greenwood (Alt. #1) –aye, Meader-aye, Molnar-aye, Perri-aye, Shute-aye, Smith-aye, VanDerVeen-aye, Ent-aye. Motion carried.

Continued discussion ensued regarding whether or not funding would be affected by the designation of either 4 or 4B based on the fact that there has not been a guarantee by the SADC as to how properties in Planning Area 4B will be evaluated and ranked in the future for farmland preservation funding purposes, possible future restrictions based on the designation and ramifications to landowners/farmers; the natural resource inventory for the Sourland Mountain Region prepared for the Office of Smart Growth was referred to in regard to decisions to be made as to where the special resources areas are; it was noted that PA4 in the northwest section the Township is extremely sensitive; it was noted that the Board forwarded a letter to the County last month that the planning areas as defined by 4B accurately describe the environmental features.

Public Comments:

Lincoln Wolf, 100 Rocktown-Lambertville Rd., - Mr. Wolf expressed to the Board that the prior decision to designate the area as 4B be upheld as it accurately defines the environmental resources and consistency with the master plan should be maintained

Allison Sayre, 51 Mill Rd. – Ms. Sayre questioned the discussion surrounding protection of something already protected such as agriculture when there seems to be a clear distinction

Ron Shapella, 26 Lakeview Rd. – Mr. Shapella expressed that of utmost importance is that the State Plan support the Township’s master plan if the event of a challenge to same. The state plan is only a planning document and has no enforcement power. Mr. Shapella indicated that in reviewing the November County Planning Board minutes in regard to priority given for farmland preservation, it was noted that PA4 property may be given priority over 4B. Mr. Shapella further stated that 4B does reflect the conditions of the Township and one condition recommended at the Environmental Commission meeting was that if SADC changes funding priority to give PA4 greater priority then West Amwell should request to change to PA4.

It was suggested by Planner Mercantante that the County should set forth in the final State plan that no restriction for funding priorities be made for PA4; no priorities be given between 4 and 4B; whether environmentally sensitive or not, the areas should not be treated differently for funding purposes.

Motion was made by Molnar with a second by Pfeiffer that the remainder of the Township that is not included in Planning Area 5 (PA5) be designated as Planning Area 4B: Rural/Environmentally Sensitive (PA4B). Roll call: Dale-naye, Greenwood (Alt. #1)-aye, Meader-naye, Molnar-aye, Perri-aye, Shute-naye, Smith-aye, VanDerVeen-aye, Ent-naye. Motion carried – 5 ayes; 4 nayes

Planner Mercantante will provide the County with the Board’s recommendations by March 30, 2005, and will file a report of dissent within the required time period if it is determined that one is needed. It was agreed that Planner Mercantante include in his correspondence to the County the Board’s opinion that funding should be considered equally for areas 4 and 4B.

Joint meeting adjourned at 10:35 PM.

Motion to adjourn at 10:35 PM was made by Pfeiffer with a second by Smith. All members voted in favor of adjournment.

Respectfully submitted,

Donna M. Griffiths

Secretary