January 22

January 22, 2009

The Township Committee met on the above date at 7:30 PM. Mayor Hlubik called the meeting to order and opened with the flag salute and a moment of silence. Roll call was taken showing present: Mayor Michael J. Hlubik, Deputy Mayor Brian J. Kelly and Township Committeeman Lawrence H. Durr. Also present was John C. Gillespie, Township Attorney. The Open Public Meetings Act statement was read and compliance noted.

Mayor Hlubik opened the meeting to the public for comments on matters not appearing on the agenda. Susan Gallagher of 15 Sprague Street asked if the Township was ever going to consider curbside collection of Christmas trees. They are currently blowing around the development in Old York Village. Mayor Hlubik stated that services generally cost money but he will speak to the Public Works Director to see if it’s feasible.

Consent Agenda

The Minutes of December 30, 2008 and January 2, 2009 along with the closed session minutes of August 28, 2008 were approved on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mr. Durr. All agreed. The approval of the closed session minutes of November 12, 2008 and December 30, 2008 were tabled at the request of Mr. Gillespie until he has time to review them.

Approval of Closed Session Minutes

The closed session minutes of September 10, 2008 were approved on a motion by Mr. Durr and second by Mayor Hlubik. All agreed and Mr. Kelly abstained. The approval of the closed session minutes of October 8, 2008 and October 23, 2008 were tabled at the request of Mr. Gillespie until he has time to review.

Ordinances for Introduction

Ordinance 2009-06 was approved for introduction on a motion by Mr. Durr and second by Mr. Kelly. All agreed.

ORDINANCE 2009 –6

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2006-7 AND CHAPTER 130-122 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD PERTAINING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FEES

WHEREAS, the Township of Chesterfield adopted Ordinance 2006-7 to authorize the collection of residential and non-residential affordable housing development fees as authorized by the Fair Housing Act of 1985, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-301, et. seq. and the rules promulgated by the New Jersey Council of Affordable Housing (“COAH”) which was codified in Chapter 130-122 of the Chesterfield Township Code; and

WHEREAS, COAH adopted new regulations for the third housing cycle on June 2, 2008 which permit municipalities to further amend their Ordinances to increase residential development fees and the Legislature amended the Fair Housing Act on July 17, 2008 (P.L. 2008, c. 46, section 8; C. 52:27D-329.2) to implement uniform statewide non-residential development fees; and

WHEREAS, Chesterfield Township desires to repeal its prior “Affordable Housing Development Fee Ordinance” and replace it with a new Ordinance that is consistent with COAH’s third cycle rules and the Statewide Non-Residential Development Fee Act in the recent amendments to the Fair Housing Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Township Committee of the Township of Chesterfield that Ordinance 2006-7 and Chapter 130-122 of the Code of the Township of Chesterfield are hereby repealed and that the following new Chapter 130-122 entitled “Affordable Housing Development Fees” be inserted in their place and stead:

SECTION 1.

§ 130-122. The following shall apply to the collection of Affordable Housing Development Fees in the Township of Chesterfield.

1. Purpose.

a) In Holmdel Builder’s Association v. Holmdel Township, 121 N.J. 550 (1990), the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that mandatory development fees are authorized by the Fair Housing Act of 1985 (the Act), N.J.S.A. 52:27d-301 et. seq., and the State Constitution, subject to the Council on Affordable Housing’s (COAH’s) adoption of rules.

b) Pursuant to P.L. 2008, c46, section 8 (C. 52:27D-329.2) and the Statewide Non-Residential Development Fee Act (C. 40:55D-8.1 through 8.7), COAH is authorized to adopt and promulgate regulations necessary for the establishment, implementation, review, monitoring and enforcement of municipal affordable housing trust funds and corresponding spending plans. Municipalities that are under the jurisdiction of the Council or court of competent jurisdiction and have a COAH-approved spending plan may retain fees collected from non-residential development.

c) This ordinance establishes standards for the collection, maintenance, and expenditure of development fees pursuant to COAH’s regulations and in accordance P.L. 2008, c.46, Section 8 and 32-28. Fees collected pursuant to this ordinance shall be used for the sole purpose of providing low- and moderate-income housing. This ordinance shall be interpreted within the framework of COAH’s rules on development fees, codified at N.J.A.C. 5:97-8.

2. Basic Requirements

a) This ordinance shall not be effective until approved by COAH pursuant to N.J.A.C. 5:96-5.1.

b) Chesterfield Township shall not spend development fees until COAH has approved a plan for spending such fees in conformance with N.J.A.C. 5:97-8.10 and N.J.A.C. 5:96-5.3.

3. Definitions

a) The following terms, as used in this ordinance, shall have the following meanings:

i. “Affordable housing development” means a development included in the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, and includes, but is not limited to, an inclusionary development, a municipal construction project or a 100 percent affordable development.

ii. “COAH” or the “Council” means the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing established under the Act which has primary jurisdiction for the administration of housing obligations in accordance with wound regional planning consideration in the State.

iii. “Development fee” means money paid by a developer for the improvement of property as permitted in N.J.A.C. 5:97-8.3.

iv. “Developer” means the legal or beneficial owner or owners of a lot or of any land proposed to be included in a proposed development, including the holder of an option or contract to purchase, or other person having an enforceable proprietary interest in such land.

v. “Equalized Assessed Value” means the assessed value of a property divided by the current average ratio of assessed to true value for the municipality in which the property is situated, as determined in accordance with sections 1, 5, and 6 of P.L. 1973, c.123 (C.54:1-35a through c.54:1-35c)

vi. “Green building strategies” means those strategies that minimize the impact of development on the environment, and enhance the health, safety, and well-being of residents by producing durable, low-maintenance, resource-efficient housing while making optimum use of existing infrastructure and community services.

4. Residential Development fees.

a) Imposed fees

(1) Developers of nine units or more on land within the Transfer of Development Rights (“TDR”) receiving zone shall construct low- and moderate-income units on-site pursuant to the mandatory set-aside of six percent (6%) of the total number units in the development.

(2) Developers of eight (8) units or fewer on land within the receiving zone shall, in lieu of construction of affordable housing, be assessed a development fee of one and one-half percent (1.5%) of the equalized assessed value of any eligible residential activity pursuant to § 130-122E of this chapter.

(3) Developers of residential land within the AG Zone and outside of the receiving zone and not participating in the TDC program shall be assessed a development fee of one and one-half percent (1.5%) of the equalized assessed value of any eligible residential activity pursuant to § 130-122E of this chapter.

(4) Developers of residential land outside of the receiving zone and the AG Zone and not participating in the TDC program shall be assessed a development fee of one and one-half percent (1.5%) of the equalized assessed value of any eligible residential activity pursuant to § 130-122E of this chapter.

(5) If a “d” variance is granted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-7d(5) outside of the receiving zone, then any additional residential units realized (above what is permitted by right under the existing zoning) will incur a bonus development fee of six percent (6%) rather than the development fee of 1.5%. However, if the zoning on a site has changed during the two-year period preceding the filing of the “d” variance application, the density for the purposes of calculating the bonus development fee shall be the highest density permitted by right during the two-year period preceding the filing of the “d” variance application.

b) Eligible exaction, ineligible exactions and exemptions for residential development

i. Affordable housing developments and developments where the developer has made a payment in lieu of on-site construction of affordable units shall be exempt from development fees.

ii. Developments that have received preliminary or final site plan approval prior to the adoption of a municipal development fee ordinance shall be exempt from development fees, unless the developer seeks a substantial change in the approval. Where a site plan approval does not apply, a zoning and/or building permit shall be synonymous with preliminary or final site plan approval for this purpose. The fee percentage shall be vested on the date that the building permit is issued.

iii. Development fees shall be imposed and collected when an existing structure undergoes a change to a more intense use, is demolished and replaced, or is expanded, if the expansion is not otherwise exempt from the development fee requirement. The development fee shall be calculated on the increase in the equalized assessed value of the improved structure.

iv. Developers of residential structures demolished and replaced as a result of fire damage, flood or similar natural disaster, shall be exempt from paying a development fee.

v. Farm buildings and accessory structures associated with agricultural or horticultural use shall be exempt from paying a development fee.

5. Non-residential Development fees

a) Imposed fees

i. Within all zoning districts, non-residential developers, except for developers of the types of development specifically exempted, shall pay a fee equal to two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the equalized assessed value of the land and improvements, for all new non-residential construction on an unimproved lot or lots.

ii. Non-residential developers, except for developers of the types of development specifically exempted, shall pay a fee equal to two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the increase in equalized assessed value resulting from any additions to existing structures to be used for non-residential purposes.

iii. Development fees shall be imposed and collected when an existing structure is demolished and replaced, The development fee of two and one half percent (2.5%) shall be calculated on the difference between the equalized assessed value of the pre-existing land and improvement and the equalized assessed value of the newly improved structure, i.e. land and improvement, at the time final certificate of occupancy is issued. If the calculation required under this section results in a negative number, the non-residential development fee shall be zero.

b) Eligible exactions, ineligible exactions and exemptions for non-residential development

i. The non-residential portion of a mixed-use inclusionary or market-rate development shall be subject to the two and one half percent (2.5%) development fee, unless otherwise exempted below.

ii. The 2.5% fee shall not apply to an increase in equalized assessed value resulting from alterations, change in use within existing footprint, reconstruction, renovations and repairs.

iii. Non-residential developments shall be exempt from the payment of non-residential development fees in accordance with the exemptions required pursuant to P.L. 2008, c46, as specified in the Form N-RDF “State of New Jersey Non-Residential Development Certification/Exemption” Form. Any exemption claimed by a developer shall be substantiated by that developer.

iv. A developer of a non-residential development exempted from the non-residential development fee pursuant to P.L. 2008, c.46 shall be subject to it at such time the basis for exemption no longer applies, and shall make the payment of the non-residential development fee, in that event, within three years after that event or after the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy of the non-residential development, whichever is later.

v. If a property which was exempted from the collection of a non-residential development fee thereafter ceases to be exempt from property taxation, the owner of the property shall remit the fees required pursuant to this section within 45 days of the termination of the property tax exemption. Unpaid non-residential development fees under these circumstances may be enforceable by Chesterfield Township as a lien against the real property of the owner.

6. Collection procedures

a) Upon the granting of a preliminary, final or other applicable approval, for a development, the applicable approving authority shall direct its staff to notify the construction official responsible for the issuance of a building permit. For non-residential developments, the developer shall also be provided with a copy of Form N-RDF “State of New Jersey Non-Residential Development Certification/Exemption” and complete as per the instructions provided.

b) For non-residential developments only, the developer shall also be provided with a copy of Form N-RDF “State of New Jersey Non-Residential Development Certification/Exemption” to be completed as per the instructions provided. The Developer of a non-residential development shall complete Form N-RDF as per the instructions provided. The construction official shall verify the information submitted by the non-residential developer as per the instructions provided in the Form N-RDF. The Tax Assessor shall verify exemptions and prepare estimated and final assessments as per the instructions provided in Form N-RDF.

c) The construction official responsible for the issuance of a building permit shall notify the local tax assessor of the issuance of the first building permit for a development which is subject to a development fee.

d) Within 90 days of receipt of that notice, the municipal tax assessor, based on the plans filed, shall provide an estimate of the equalized assessed value of that development.

e) The construction official responsible for the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy notifies the local assessor of any and all requests for the scheduling of a final inspection on property which is subject to a development fee.

f) Within 10 business days of a scheduling of a final inspection, the municipal assessor shall confirm or modify the previously estimated equalized assessed value of the improvements of the development; calculate the development fee; and thereafter notify the developer of the amount of the fee.

g) Should the Township fail to determine or notify the developer of the amount of the development fee within 10 business days of the request for final inspection, the developer may estimate the amount due and pay that estimated amount consistent with the dispute process set forth in subsection b. of section 37 of P.L. 2008, c.46 (C.40:55D-8.6).

h) Fifty percent of the development fee shall be collected at the time of the issuance of the building permit. The remaining portion shall be collected at the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The developer shall be responsible for paying the difference between the fee calculated at building permit and that determined at issuance of certificate of occupancy.

i) Appeal of development fees

1) A developer may challenge residential development fees imposed by filing a challenge with the County Board of Taxation. Pending a review and determination by the Board, collected fees shall be placed in an interest bearing escrow account by the Township. Appeals from a determination of the Board may be made to the tax court in accordance with the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure Law, R.S. 54:48-1 et. seq., within 90 days after the date of such determination. Interest earned on amounts escrowed shall be credited to the prevailing part.

2) A developer may challenge non-residential development fees imposed by filing a challenge with the Director of the Division of Taxation. Pending a review and determination by the Director, which shall be made within 45 days of receipt of the challenge, collected fees shall be placed in an interest bearing escrow account by the Township. Appeals from a determination of the Director may be made to the tax court in accordance with the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure Law, R.S. 54:48-1 et. seq., within 90 days after the date of such determination. Interest earned on amounts escrowed shall be credited to the prevailing party.

7. Affordable Housing Trust Fund

a) There is hereby created a separate, interest-bearing housing trust fund to be maintained by the Chief Financial Officer of the Township for the purpose of depositing development fees collected from residential and non-residential developers and proceeds from the sale of units with extinguished controls.

b) The following additional funds shall be deposited in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and shall at all times be identifiable by source and amount:

1. payments in lieu of on-site construction of affordable units;

2. developer contributed funds to make ten percent (10%) of the adaptable entrances in a townhouse or other multi-story attached development accessible;

3. rental income from municipally operated units;

4. repayments from affordable housing program loans;

5. recapture funds;

6. proceeds from the sale of affordable units; and

7. any other funds collected in connection with the Township’s affordable housing program.

c) Within seven (7) days from the opening of the trust fund account, the Township shall provide COAH with written authorization, in the form of a three-party escrow agreement between the municipality, the bank, and COAH to permit COAH to direct the disbursement of the funds as provided for in N.J.A.C. 5:97-8.13(b).

d) All interest accrued in the housing trust fund shall only be used on eligible affordable housing activities approved by COAH.

8. Use of funds

a) The expenditure of all funds shall conform to a spending plan approved by COAH. Funds deposited in the housing trust fund may be used for any activity approved by COAH to address the Township’s fair share obligation and may be set up as a grant or revolving loan program. Such activities include, but are not limited to: preservation or purchase or housing for the purpose of maintaining or implementing affordability controls, rehabilitation, new construction of affordable housing units and related costs, accessory apartment, market to affordable, or regional housing partnership programs, conversion of existing non-residential buildings to create new affordable units, green building strategies designed to be cost saving and in accordance with accepted national or state standards, purchase of land for affordable housing, improvement of land to be used for affordable housing, extensions or improvements of roads and infrastructure to affordable housing sites, financial assistance designed to increase affordability, administration necessary for implementation of Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, or any other activity as permitted pursuant to N.J.A.C. 5:97-8.7 through 8.9 and specified in the approved spending plan.

b) Funds shall not be expended to reimburse the Township for past housing activities.

c) At least 30 percent of all development fees collected and interest earned shall be used to provide affordability assistance to low-and moderate-income households in affordable units included in the municipal Fair Share Plan. One-third of the affordability assistance portion of development fees collected shall be used to provide affordability assistance to those households earning 30% or less of median income by region.

i. Affordability assistance programs may include down payment assistance, security deposit assistance, low interest loans, rental assistance, assistance with homeowners association or condominium fees and special assessments, and assistance with emergency repairs.

ii. Affordability assistance to households earning 30% or less of median income may include buying down the cost of low or moderate income units in the municipal Fair Share Plan to make them affordable to households earning 30% or less of median income. The use of development fees in this manner shall entitle the Township to bonus credits pursuant to N.J.A.C. 5:97-3.7.

iii. Payments in lieu of constructing affordable units on site and funds from the sale of units with extinguished controls shall be exempt from the affordability assistance requirement.

d) The Township may contract with a private or public entity to administer any part of its Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, including the requirement for affordability assistance, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 5:96-18.

e) No more than 20 percent of all revenues collected from development fees may be expended on administration, including, but not limited to, salaries and benefits for municipal employees or consultant fees necessary to develop or implement a new construction program, a Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, and/or an affirmative marketing program. In the case of a rehabilitation program, no more than 20 percent (20%) of the revenues collected from development fees shall be expended for such administrative expenses. Administrative funds may be used for income qualification of households, monitoring the turnover of sale and rental units, and compliance with COAH’s monitoring requirements. Legal or other fees related to litigation opposing affordable housing sites or objecting to the Council’s regulations and/or action are not eligible uses of the affordable housing trust fund.

9. Monitoring

a) The Township shall complete and return to COAH all monitoring forms included in monitoring requirements related to the collection of development fees from residential and non-residential developers, payments in lieu of constructing affordable units on site, funds from the sale of units with extinguished controls, barrier-free escrow funds, rental income, repayments from affordable housing program loans, and any other funds collected in connection with the Township’s housing program, as well as the expenditure of revenues and implementation of the plan certified by COAH or approved by the court. All monitoring reports shall be completed on forms designed by COAH.

10. Ongoing Collection of Fees

a) The ability for the Township to impose, collect and expend development fees shall expire with its substantive certification from COAH or judgment of compliance from the court (as the case may be) unless the Township has filed an adopted Housing Element and Fair Share Plan with COAH, has petitioned for substantive certification or the entry of a judgment of compliance from the court, and has received COAH’s approval of its development fee ordinance. If the Township fails to renew its ability to impose and collect development fees prior to the expiration of substantive certification of its judgment of compliance, it may be subject to forfeiture or any or all funds remaining within its municipal trust fund. Any funds so forfeited shall be deposited into the “New Jersey Affordable Housing Trust Find” established pursuant to section 2o of P.L. 1985, c.222 (C.52:27D-320). The Township shall not impose a residential development fee on a development that receives preliminary or final site plan approval after the expiration of its substantive certification or judgment of compliance, nor shall the Township retroactively impose a development fee on such a development. The Township shall not expend development fees after the expiration of its substantive certification or judgment of compliance.

SECTION 2. If any section, paragraph, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall be adjudged by the Court to be invalid, such adjudication shall apply only to the section, paragraph, subsection, clause or provision so adjudged, and the remainder of this Ordinance shall remain valid and in full force and effect.

SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon final adoption and publication in accordance with the law.

Ordinance 2009-07 was approved for introduction on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mr. Durr. All agreed.

ORDINANCE 2009 –7

AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG CERTAIN SECTIONS OF FENTON LANE

WHEREAS, the Fuchs Property (Block 203, Lot 32.01) is the site of a proposed recreation field; and

WHEREAS, although the proposed athletic field complex will provide ample off-street parking, there may be occasions when the parking demand is unmet, resulting in visitors to the facility parking on Fenton Lane; and

WHEREAS, parking in this location crease an unsafe traffic condition where motorists are entering and exiting the roadway at various uncontrolled locations, pursuant to the Township Engineer’s report attached hereto and made a part hereof; and

WHEREAS, the Township Committee, in the interest of safety to the residents of the Township, wish to amend § 182 of the Township Code by prohibiting parking on sections of Fenton Lane;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED by the Township Committee of the Township of Chesterfield, County of Burlington and State of New Jersey that Chapter 182-26, Schedule VII: Parking Prohibited at All Times is amended to add the following additional restriction:

Name of Street Sides Location

Fenton Lane both Beginning at Block 203, Lot 13.03

(26 Fenton Lane) and extending

Northerly to the end of Lot 11

(12 Fenton Lane)

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that:

1. All ordinances or part of ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

2. If any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid, such adjudication shall apply only to the section, paragraph, subdivision, clause or provision and the remainder of this ordinance shall be deemed valid and effective.

3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication according to law.

Ordinance 2009-08 was approved for introduction on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mr. Durr. All agreed.

ORDINANCE 2009 –8

AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING POSITIONS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEFINED CONTRIBUTION RETIREMENT PROGRAM

WHEREAS, the State Legislature adopted Chapter 92 of the Laws of 2007 (N.J.S.A. 43:15C-1 et. seq.) to create the Defined Contribution Retirement Program (“DCRP”) to provide retirement benefits to various municipal officials; and

WHEREAS, N.J.S.A. 43:15C-2 requires the Township Committee of the Township of Chesterfield adopt an Ordinance to determine the positions that are substantially similar in nature to the advice and counsel of the Senate for appointments by the Governor of the State, pursuant to guidelines or policies that shall be established by the Local Finance Board in the Department of Community Affairs, and for which officials appointed to such positions shall be eligible and shall participate in the Defined Contribution Retirement Program, subject to the provisions of law; and

WHEREAS, the Township Committee of the Township of Chesterfield has considered the guidelines issues by the Local Finance Board;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Township Committee of the Township of Chesterfield, County of Burlington and State of New Jersey that:

1. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:15C-2, the following positions are deemed eligible and shall participate in the Defined Contribution Retirement Program:

a. Mayor

b. Township Committee

2. Individuals serving in the following positions are exempt from Defined Contribution Retirement Program membership, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:15C-2:

a. Building Sub Code Official

b. Chief Financial Officer

c. Construction Code Official

d. Electric Sub Code Official

e. Fire Sub Code Official

f. Plumbing Sub Code Official

g. Registered Municipal Clerk

h. Tax Assessor

i. Tax Collector

j. Principal Public Works Manager

3. Notwithstanding the above, individuals who are already enrolled in a PERS position, may continue their PERS position when serving on a DCRP position as long as employment is “continuous” according to the law.

4. This Ordinance shall be implemented, construed and subject to the aforesaid Chapter 92 of the Laws of 2007 (N.J.S.A. 43:15C-1 et. seq.) as amended from time to time, and any regulation or guidance documents from the Local Finance Board or the Division of Pension and Benefits.

5. Should any part or parts of this Ordinance be held invalid by any competent Court of Law, such invalidity shall only affect the part or parts held to be invalid, all other parts shall remain in effect.

6. A copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the Director of the Division of Pensions and Benefits of the New Jersey Department of Treasury.

7. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication as required by law.

The public on Ordinances 2009-6, 2009-7 and 2009-8 is scheduled for February 11, 2009.

Ordinances for Public Hearing

The public hearing on Ordinance 2009-1 was opened on a motion by Mr. Durr and second by Mr. Kelly. Hearing no comments or questions on the ordinance, the public hearing was closed on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mr. Durr and Ordinance 2009-1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 130 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD was finally adopted on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mr. Durr. All agreed.

The public hearing on Ordinance 2009-2 was opened on a motion by Mr. Durr and second by Mr. Kelly. Hearing no comments or questions from the public, the public hearing was closed on a motion by Mr. Durr and second by Mr. Kelly and Ordinance 2009-2 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 39 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD ENTITLED “OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES” was finally adopted on a motion by Mr. Durr and second by Mr. Kelly. All agreed.

The public hearing on Ordinance 2009-3 was opened on a motion by Mr. Durr and second by Mr. Kelly. Hearing no comments or questions, the public hearing was closed on a motion by Mr. Durr and second by Mr. Kelly and Ordinance 2009-3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD TO FIX SALARIES, WAGES AND COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD FOR THE YEAR 2009 was finally adopted on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mr. Durr. All agreed.

The public hearing on Ordinance 2009-4 was opened on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mayor Hlubik. Mr. Durr disqualified himself, stepped down from the Committee table and sat in the audience. Mr. Gillespie explained that this Ordinance revises the TDR credit formula for commercial and multi-family units in the receiving area. There has been an allegation of a conflict of interest so the Ordinance which was previously adopted in 2007 is being repealed and redone to eliminate the conflict. The Township Planner has issued a report dated December 3, 2008 to the Planning Board and the Township Committee explaining that the ordinance revisions are intended to facilitate development of retail and multi-use development in the Receiving Area by reducing the TDR credits required to develop those units. The concern is that it is currently economically infeasible to develop these units, a concern which is heightened by the national recession and market weakness. The Planning Board discussed this matter at their meeting of December 9, 2008 and those minutes will be made part of the record. A memo from the Planning Board has been received stated that the Board agrees that the Ordinance amendment is substantially consistent with the Master Plan and they recommend the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DiMemmo of 6 Church Street asked if this amendment would increase the number of units allowed to be built. Mr. Gillespie responded that it would not. There would be no change in the number of units allowed to be built, only in the number of TDR credits that would be required to build those units. This provides a financial incentive to developers to build the retail and multi-use units.

Hearing no other comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mayor Hlubik. Ordinance 2009-4 AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2007-9 AND TO RE-ENACT “AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 130 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD ENTITLED ‘LAND DEVELOPMENT’ AND SEPCIFICALLY SECTION 130-42 REGARDING DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF USE IN THE PVD PLANNED VILLAGE DISTRICT” was finally adopted on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mayor Hlubik. All were in favor with the exception of the abstention by Mr. Durr.

Mr. Durr returned to the Committee table.

The public hearing on Ordinance 2009-5 was opened on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mr. Durr. Mr. Gillespie explained the need for growing municipalities to regulate the use of video or still photography in public meetings so it does not become a distraction during the meeting. The Township Committee in Chesterfield has always maintained decorum in meetings and this Ordinance eliminates the possibility of losing that decorum. Videotapes of meetings would be turned over to the Township Clerk and reviewed and copied at the Township’s expense to avoid the possibility of tapes being edited. Hearing no public comments on the Ordinance, the public hearing was closed on a motion by Mr. Durr and second by Mr. Kelly. Ordinance 2009-5 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING STILL PHOTOGRAPHY, VIDEOTAPING AND AUDIO TAPING OF PUBLIC MEETINGS was finally adopted on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mr. Durr. All agreed.

Resolutions

Resolution 2009-1-28 was approved on a motion by Mr. Durr and second by Mr. Kelly. All agreed.

RESOLUTION 2009-1-28

RESOLUTION APPOINTING ALTERNATE #3 TO THE LAND USE BOARD

WHEREAS, the Township Committee has determined that it is appropriate to expand the number of Alternate Members of the Land Use Board from two (2) to four (4); and

WHEREAS, by Ordinance 2009-1 adopted January 22, 2009, Section 130 of the Code of the Township of Chesterfield was amended to allow for four alternate members which is authorized by statute; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor wishes to appoint Alternate # 3 for a term of two (2) years and leave the position of Alternate # 4 vacant at this time.;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Chesterfield in the County of Burlington and State of New Jersey that Matthew Weismantel is hereby appointed as Alternate # 3 of the Land Use Board of the Township of Chesterfield; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said appointment is for a term of two (2) years, said term expiring January 21, 2011.

Resolution 2009-1-29 was approved on a motion by Mr. Durr and second by Mr. Kelly. All agreed.

RESOLUTION 2009-1-29

RESOUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER AMONG

BUDGET APPROPRIATION RESERVES

WHEREAS, various 2008 bills have been presented for payment this year, which bills were not covered by order number; and

WHEREAS, N.J.S.A. 40A:4-59 provides that all unexpended balances carried forward after the close of the year are available, until lapsed at the close of the succeeding year, to meet specific claims, commitments or contracts incurred during the preceding fiscal year, and allow transfers to be made from unexpended balances which are expected to be insufficient during the first three months of the succeeding year;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Chesterfield in the County of Burlington and State of New Jersey that the Treasurer be and the same is hereby authorized to make transfers among the 2008 Budget Appropriation Reserves in accordance with the following schedule of transfers:

FROM AMOUNT TO AMOUNT

Audit O E $ 1,400.00

Animal Control OE 1,000.00

DCRP $ 1,000.00

Parks/Playgrounds OE $ 2,450.00

Buildings/Grounds SW $ 7,300.00

Construction OE $ 3,532.90

TOTAL $16,682.90 Utilities $ 9,600.00

Legal $ 7,082.90

TOTAL $16,682.90

Discussion

Crosswicks Innkeepers / COAH unit – Karl Braun was present to impress upon the Committee that the Innkeepers are hopeful that there has been more discussion to move forward with this proposal. Mr. Gillespie has reviewed the calculations prepared by Mr. Maley of the present value and feels this gives a comfort level to the Township Committee for the Innkeepers request. Mr. Durr questioned Mr. Braun as to why the rent amount used in the calculation ($1,000 per month) differs from the rent actually being asked ($900. per month). Mr. Braun responded that the Innkeepers were originally asking $900.00 per month but there was so much interest in the apartment, that they raised the asking rent to $1,000 per month and it will be rented as a COAH unit for $ 1,000 per month. Mr. Durr replied that it seems disingenuous that the rental flyer does not agree with the calculation numbers presented to the Committee. Mr. Gillespie suggested getting the fair market rent amounts from Mr. Tantum but, regardless, the Township does not have the requested amount of $35,000 in the Developers Trust and needs to raise the money. Any bond ordinances considered by the Committee would need Local Finance Board approval.

MTAC – there is a question as to whether the Township needs to request proposals for the ambulance contract and Mr. Gillespie characterized his previous conversations. He is not comfortable with giving $70,000 to the Emergency Squad knowing they will contract with MTAC and not requesting proposals. Mr. Durr stated that the current contract with MTAC is public and doesn’t that give any other bidders an unfair advantage. Mr. Gillespie responded that there are other factors to consider when awarding the contract and it doesn’t necessarily have to be awarded to the lowest bidder. Mr. Durr further questioned whether reputation and previous experience can be considered. Mr. Gillespie replied that there is an objective standard to be applied to the review and award. Mr. Durr continued that there has been a lot of work put into the emergency contract with MTAC and most of that work was done by MTAC. He doesn’t feel this is any different that not requesting proposals for professionals. The Committee has always made those appointments based on reputation and prior experience, and the Committee awarded the emergency contract to MTAC based on that same criteria. Mr. Gillespie continued that it is his advice to the Committee to request proposals but it is a policy decision. Mr. Gillespie further stated that he would like to review the RFP prior to it being sent out. Lynn Mathews, Squad Captain questioned if the RFP would be finalized prior to the end of the current 3 month contract and asked that she also be allowed to review the RFP. Mr. Gillespie responded that a decision could be made by mid-February and he would review the RFP with Lynn. Dick Archer, Captain of MTAC stated that the Township is preparing an RFP with no true knowledge of what they will be requesting. There are no true numbers concerning call volumes to rely on. MTAC has been providing service since the first of the year and the Township has experienced the most rapid response time they have ever enjoyed. A blind RFP may cause that to change. He believes that the Township can legally give the money to the local squad to contract with whomever they wish. An audit would be provided to the Township each year. Lynn Mathews stated that the current service is better than it has been in 21 years and hopes the Township can work this out so that level of service will continue. Mr. Gillespie stated that he is not giving this advice to the Committee to preclude MTAC from getting the contract. Dick Archer stated that he is concerned with the criteria that will be placed in the RFP and wants to ensure that the Township will be comparing apples to apples. He also stated that he would need a decision from the Township Committee prior to the end of the 3 month contract in order to allow him time to schedule his personnel. Mr. Durr stated that the Township should be able to make a decision at the second meeting in February.

Septic and Wastewater Management Ordinance – Mr. Gillespie informed the Committee that he believes this is the County’s responsibility and they are passing it off to the municipalities. There are no other towns that he is aware of that have taken any action on this yet. Mr. Gillespie will schedule someone from the County Health Department to attend a future meeting.

Bicycle & Pedestrian Public Meeting – Gina DelVecchio, Project manager has asked that an open house type session be planned for February 5 or February 10 from 4 – 7 PM for the public input on the proposed plans. Mr. Kelly requested that they be asked if this can be done on a Saturday, since the public information session on the Village Square Design was so well attended on a Saturday. The Clerk will check to see if that is an option. If not, February 10 will be requested.

Village Square Park Design – the Clerk will check to see if Clarke Caton Hintz has provided any cost estimates for this project and it will be included in budget discussions.

Toll Brothers Zoning Violation – Mr. Gillespie has reviewed the documents from Richard Hamilton representing Toll Brothers and from the Planning Board and informed the Committee that if the stop work order is lifted and the Planning Board denies the variance and Toll appeals, the stop work order cannot be re-issued. Richard Hamilton’s correspondence should indicate that the Township has the right to re-issue the stop work order and hold the Certificate of Occupancy if the situation goes that far. Mr. Durr stated that, while Toll Brothers did make the mistake, he does not feel that a new resident should be punished for that mistake. Mr. Kelly also requested that Toll be required to communicate with the buyer as none of Mr. Hamilton’s correspondence is copied to the buyer.

Recreation area – a meeting will be scheduled for February 24 at 7:30 PM for the Recreation Committee to review the revised plans and discuss whether to proceed at this time. Susan Gallagher asked about the newspaper article that stated that this project may be on hold. Mr. Durr responded that there may be good reason to go ahead with developing this area now as it could possibly be done for less money than expected. However, he is concerned with the public perception of building the recreation areas in the current economy. Mrs. Gallagher continued that the CTAA has an urgent need for baseball fields as the upper level of baseball is being regionalized and more fields will be necessary. Mr. Durr replied that the Township responded to an urgent need of the CTAA for additional soccer fields in the Fall. The Public Works Department created a driveway and parking area for the soccer fields in the new recreation area off of Fenton Lane and had the area ready for use in September. The CTAA never used the fields.

Payment of Bills

The bill list was approved for payment on a motion by Mr. Durr and second by Mr. Kelly. All agreed.

Mayor Hlubik opened the meeting to the public for comments. Bob Schoen of Fenton Lane stated that, in reference to Resolution 2009-1-28 appointing a 3^rd alternate to the Planning Board, this has happened in the past, back in the 70’s, where there were not enough members on the board and members of the audience were asked to sit with the Board to hear and decide applications. Mr. Gillespie stated that the Land Use law has changed several times since then.

Hearing no other comments, the Committee approved Resolution 2009-1-30 on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mr. Durr to enter Executive Session for the purpose of discussing a tax court issue, return of municipal property and negotiations. All agreed. The Committee entered executive session at 8:58 PM.

The Committee resumed open session at 9:32 PM and adjourned the meeting on a motion by Mr. Kelly and second by Mr. Durr. All agreed.

Respectfully submitted,

Bonnie J. Haines, RMC
Township Clerk

Back