1 1 HUDSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 IN RE: ) ) TRANSCRIPT OF 3 MONTHLY MEETING ) PROCEEDINGS: ) 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) Administration Annex 5 567 Pavonia Avenue Freeholders Chambers 6 Jersey City, New Jersey Wednesday, May 18, 2005 7 6:30 p.m. 8 B E F O R E: 9 MICHAEL HOLLOWAY, CHAIRMAN 10 RENEE BETTINGER, COMMISSIONER 11 MARY E. AVAGLIANO, COMMISSIONER 12 RUSHABH MEHTA, COMMISSIONER 13 JUDE FITZGIBBONS, COMMISSIONER 14 THOMAS LIGGIO, FREEHOLDER 15 DANIEL CHOFFO, COMMISSIONER 16 A L S O P R E S E N T: 17 THOMAS CALVANICO, ESQ., Board Attorney 18 STEPHEN MARKS, PP, AICP, Planning Director 19 Reported By: 20 21 MICHELLE GRUENDEL, C.S.R. 22 REPORTING SERVICES ARRANGED THROUGH VERITEXT/NEW JERSEY REPORTING COMPANY, L.L.C. 23 Kabot Battaglia & Hammer Suburban Shorthand Waga and Spinelli Arthur J. Frannicola CSR 24 25B Vreeland Road Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 25 Tel: 973-410-4040 Fax: 973-410-1313 2 1 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Meeting called to 2 order, please. 3 Tom, does this meeting comply with the Public 4 Meeting Act? 5 MR. CALVANICO: Yes, it does. 6 Go ahead, Steve. 7 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, notice of 8 this meeting was published in the Jersey Journal 9 newspaper and sent to the City Clerk of the City of 10 Jersey City. 11 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: I've seen it 13 in the Jersey Journal. It was in the Jersey Journal. 14 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Can we have the 15 roll call, please? 16 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Avagliano? 17 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: Here. 18 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Bettinger? 19 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: Here. 20 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Choffo? 21 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: Here. 22 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Dublin is not 23 here. 24 Commissioner Fitzgibbons? 25 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Here. 3 1 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Jasek is not 2 here. 3 Commissioner Liggio? 4 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: Here. 5 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Mehta is not 6 present. 7 And Chairman Holloway? 8 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Here. 9 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, we have a 10 quorum. 11 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Thank you. 12 Can we salute the flag, please? 13 (Flag Salute takes place.) 14 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Review and 15 adoption of the meeting minutes from April 20th, 16 2005. 17 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: I'll make a 18 motion to adopt the minutes. 19 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: Second it. 20 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, on a motion 21 made by Commissioner Choffo and seconded by 22 Commissioner Liggio: 23 Commissioner Avagliano? 24 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: Aye. 25 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Bettinger? 4 1 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: Aye. 2 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Fitzgibbons? 3 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Aye. 4 MR. MARKS: And Chairman Holloway? 5 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Aye. 6 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, the motion 7 passes. 8 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Is there any 9 public comment on the Agenda items? 10 Okay, Steve. 11 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, item number 12 6A, memorialization of resolutions approved at last 13 meeting, we have SD-13-05, Dillin Realty Company, 14 Inc. at 492-496 Kennedy Boulevard in Bayonne; 15 SP-31-05, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC at 1212-1215 16 Willow Avenue in Hoboken; SD/SP-42-05, Oliver Pan at 17 1597 Kennedy Boulevard in Jersey City. 18 Mr. Chairman, do I have a motion? 19 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: I'll make a 20 motion. 21 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: Second. 22 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, on a motion 23 made by Commissioner Bettinger and seconded by 24 Commissioner Avagliano: 25 Commissioner Choffo? 5 1 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: Aye. 2 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Fitzgibbons? 3 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Aye. 4 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Liggio? 5 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: Aye. 6 MR. MARKS: Chairman Holloway? 7 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Aye. 8 MR. MARKS: Chairman, the motion 9 passes. 10 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Thank you. 11 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, for item 12 number 6B, applications declared to be exempt, we 13 have SP-44-05, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC at 410 14 Washington Avenue, Hoboken; SP-49-05, Omnipoint 15 Communications, 20-24 48th Street in Weehawken; and 16 SP-55-05, Frances Barth and Ronald Nakahara at 17 7105-7107 Jackson Street in North Bergen. 18 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Thank you. 19 Can I have a motion? 20 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: Motion to 21 accept. 22 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: I'll second 24 that. 25 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, on a motion 6 1 made by Commissioner Avagliano and seconded by 2 Commissioner Bettinger: 3 Commissioner Choffo? 4 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: Aye. 5 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Fitzgibbons? 6 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Aye. 7 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Liggio? 8 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: Aye. 9 MR. MARKS: And Chairman Holloway? 10 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Aye. 11 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, the motion 12 passes. 13 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Thank you. 14 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, the first 15 Agenda which is scheduled for Public Hearing tonight 16 under section 6C is SP-30-05, WCI Communities, Inc. 17 at 8100 River Road in North Bergen. 18 MR. OURY: Good evening, Members of 19 the Board. Dennis Oury appearing on behalf of WCI 20 Industries. 21 Our application tonight is for an actual, a 22 reduction in the number of units that were approved 23 by the local Board of -- Planning Board, I believe, 24 in 1999 and approved by this Board sometime 25 thereafter. 7 1 The project was built by a developer and it 2 was called the Half Moon House. It has now purchased 3 the development rights by WCI who is now going to 4 build for-sale condominium units as opposed to 5 apartments, and that, from a marketing standpoint, 6 requires them to reduce the number of units. 7 The only thing I ask is that this Board not 8 let anybody know that I represented a client that 9 wanted to reduce the number of units in their project 10 that had already been approved. It's no good for my 11 reputation. 12 The only witness I have tonight would be our 13 engineer from Langan Engineering. 14 George, can you please step forward? 15 MR. DERRICK: Good evening. 16 MR. OURY: Who do you want to swear 17 him in? 18 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Tom. 19 MR. CALVANICO: Can you state your 20 name and position for the record? 21 MR. DERRICK: Sure. 22 George Derrick, D-E-R-R-I-C-K. I'm a 23 licensed Professional Engineer in the State of New 24 Jersey employed by Langan Engineering in Elmwood 25 Park, New Jersey. 8 1 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Excuse me. Could 2 we have that brought up a little bit closer? 3 MR. DERRICK: Sure. Either that or -- 4 you want it closer? 5 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: No. We need 6 your glasses. 7 MR. OURY: George, can you step in 8 front of that board? 9 You're a licensed -- 10 MR. DERRICK: I haven't been sworn 11 in. 12 GEORGE DERRICK, having been first duly sworn 13 according to law, testified as follows: 14 MR. OURY: Now, George, you're a 15 licensed engineer in the State of New Jersey? 16 MR. DERRICK: I am. 17 MR. OURY: And you're employed by 18 Langan Engineering? 19 MR. DERRICK: I am. 20 MR. OURY: And you've been licensed 21 for how many years? 22 MR. DERRICK: Over 30. 23 MR. OURY: Have you qualified before 24 this Board before? 25 MR. DERRICK: No. 9 1 MR. OURY: Have you qualified in 2 any -- before any board to testify as an expert in 3 engineering? 4 MR. DERRICK: Many boards in the State 5 of New Jersey. 6 MR. OURY: I would ask that the Board 7 accept Mr. -- George's qualifications as an engineer. 8 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Okay. 9 MR. OURY: Thank you. 10 Now, George, can you -- I've told the Board 11 that this project that our client, WCI Communities, 12 has purchased was already approved back in 1997, I 13 think, or amended in 1999. 14 Is that correct? 15 MR. DERRICK: That's correct. 16 MR. OURY: Can you just briefly 17 describe where the property is and the proposal -- 18 MR. DERRICK: Sure. 19 MR. OURY: -- that's already been 20 approved? 21 MR. DERRICK: All right. It's located 22 on River Road on the river side. 23 What I'd first like to do is show you what 24 was previously approved so you have a frame of 25 reference. 10 1 MR. OURY: The site plan you now have 2 up is dated what? 3 MR. DERRICK: 19 -- revision dates, I 4 don't see any. July 27th, 1998. 5 MR. OURY: And who prepared those 6 plans? 7 MR. DERRICK: Cybul and Cybul 8 Architects. 9 MR. OURY: Can you now explain to the 10 Board what you would like them to look at? 11 MR. DERRICK: What we did is mount 12 what was previously approved, which is -- and we've 13 shaded the orange -- in orange the building and the 14 parking garage, and what we've now -- just to get 15 your focus on that, and the building to the south has 16 already been constructed. There's an entrance drive 17 off of River Drive known as Rock Harbour Drive. That 18 has been constructed and is now in operation. 19 MR. OURY: Before you move the next 20 one up, Mr. Calvanico has asked that we mark that as 21 Applicant-1. If you have a pen, you could just put 22 A-1 on it -- 23 MR. DERRICK: I do. 24 MR. OURY: -- and today's date. 25 Before you remove that, the plan that you 11 1 have before you that's been marked A-1 is the plan 2 that's actually been approved by the local Planning 3 Board and also submitted to the County Planning Board 4 which contemplated two structures, one of which is 5 built and occupied already; is that correct? 6 MR. DERRICK: That's right. 7 MR. OURY: And this is the second 8 structure that was approved, the one we're going to 9 talk about tonight? 10 MR. DERRICK: That's correct. 11 MR. OURY: We'll mark that A-2, 12 please, and give me the date of the plans. 13 MR. DERRICK: The date of this plan is 14 3-14-05. 15 MR. OURY: And it's prepared by your 16 firm? 17 MR. DERRICK: Yes. 18 MR. OURY: Okay. Can you tell us what 19 that depicts, please? 20 MR. DERRICK: This is the site plan as 21 it's now prepared -- proposed. If you look closely, 22 the building areas are virtually the same. The 23 residential structure's to the top of the drawing on 24 both, and the residential -- the parking garage is 25 adjacent to the south. What has happened is the 12 1 building area is slightly small in footprint. 2 They're both 12 stories in height. The parking 3 garage is a little bit smaller because we have less 4 parking spaces. It's been reduced from 498 spaces to 5 333 to accommodate the less number of units. What 6 has happened, part of the structure that was on the 7 top has been converted to landscaped area rather than 8 parking, that was previously proposed. 9 MR. OURY: So we're actually doing 10 more landscaping than was asked for by the 11 community? 12 MR. DERRICK: We -- 13 MR. OURY: So you and I want to take 14 credit for that on our next application; is that 15 right? 16 MR. DERRICK: That's right. 17 We've also made some minor revisions to the 18 circulation to improve the drop-off area and, and 19 entry to the building, and what happens is as a 20 result of all these changes, the building area and 21 the impervious area stay virtually the same, within 22 fractions of a percentage point. 23 MR. OURY: Can you tell the Board how 24 many units were approved and how many we're 25 proposing? 13 1 MR. DERRICK: 331 apartment units were 2 approved. Now we're asking for 208 condominium 3 units. 4 MR. OURY: I assume the physical units 5 will be larger than the apartment units; is that 6 correct? 7 MR. DERRICK: They will be. 8 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Go ahead. 9 MR. OURY: And the parking spaces were 10 reduced concomitantly with the number of units; is 11 that correct? 12 MR. DERRICK: That's correct. 13 MR. OURY: Now, it's my understanding 14 that the Board's engineer had submitted some 15 inquiries and asked for some minor technical changes 16 to the plan, which I understand have been performed 17 by Langan Engineering; is that correct? 18 MR. DERRICK: We have done that, yes. 19 MR. OURY: And you submitted that and 20 it's been accepted by the Engineer for the County; is 21 that correct? 22 MR. DERRICK: That's right. 23 MR. OURY: Additionally, tomorrow 24 night at the North Bergen Planning Board it's my 25 understanding that the Chairman of the Board will 14 1 sign a letter which will indicate that they will not 2 require an application for these minor amendments to 3 the plan which we can then submit to the County 4 Planning Board; is that correct? 5 MR. DERRICK: That's right. 6 MR. OURY: Okay. Unless the Board has 7 any further questions, I really have no other 8 questions of this witness. 9 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: I have one 10 question. I'm sorry. 11 The items that Dimetrio expressed in his memo 12 have been addressed? 13 MR. DERRICK: Yes. 14 MR. OURY: Can you just give me -- 15 MR. DERRICK: Yeah. They've been 16 added to the plans and re-submitted. There were two 17 details, a curb detail and a trench detail, and 18 some -- and a note about the landscaping. 19 Also, there's a question about the traffic 20 generation, and what we've done is submitted a letter 21 demonstrating that the traffic has not been increased 22 as a result of the change in the number of units, so 23 the traffic conditions are -- remain unchanged. 24 Actually, they get reduced slightly. 25 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: The landscaping is 15 1 going to be maintained by the owner; am I correct? 2 MR. DERRICK: That's right, and that's 3 what the note confirmed would be done. 4 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I want to 5 ask you about -- that's right on the waterfront? 6 MR. DERRICK: It is, yes. The water 7 is to the right. 8 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Will the 9 public have access to that? 10 MR. DERRICK: Yes. There's a walkway 11 on the northerly side of the property that goes down 12 to the waterfront. 13 MR. OURY: Mr. Fitzgibbons, it's my 14 understanding that there was a waterfront development 15 permit already granted. Pat Segegdin is here 16 tonight. They're going to be -- to do a minor 17 amendment to that application. We expect to have it 18 soon. 19 MS. SEGEGDIN: We had submitted the 20 application back in March. It's under review right 21 now and we expect modification -- 22 MR. CALVANICO: Wait. Wait. Wait. 23 Come up, give us your name and -- 24 MS. SEGEGDIN: Patricia Segegdin, 25 S-E-G-E-G-D-I-N. 16 1 The answer to the question -- 2 MR. OURY: Wait a minute. You have to 3 be sworn in. 4 PATRICIA SEGEGDIN, having been first duly sworn 5 according to law, testified as follows: 6 MS. SEGEGDIN: On behalf of WCI, we 7 submitted an application to the New Jersey Department 8 of Environmental Protection Land Use Regulation 9 Program which was classified as a minor modification, 10 and that application's under review right now. We 11 anticipate that the approval of the modification will 12 be out hopefully by the end of this month, May. 13 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Before we go 14 further, I'd like to put on the record that 15 Commissioner Rushabh is here. 16 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: There's a 17 lot of recommendations here that have to be in 18 writing and approved. You know, we approved this, 19 but it has to be made clear that unless these 20 recommendations and whatever letters or legal matters 21 to this property has to be, you know, should be 22 resolved. 23 MR. OURY: I think that what I would 24 ask the Board to do is to vote on this tonight and 25 make your, hopefully, approval subject to the 17 1 approval from the DEP and the letter from the 2 municipality, which I will forward to Mr. Marks and 3 Mr. Calvanico so he could then prepare the 4 appropriate resolution. It's just subject to 5 whatever other approvals are necessary. 6 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: Did you 7 receive a letter from our engineer with certain 8 remarks that had to be completed? 9 MR. DERRICK: Yes, we did. 10 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: They were all 11 completed? 12 MR. DERRICK: Yes. They've been 13 completed, yes. 14 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: Okay. That's 15 good. 16 MR. CALVANICO: Just so the Board is 17 clear, we just received the revised plans from the 18 applicant tonight, so the engineer hasn't had an 19 opportunity to review them to confirm it or indicate 20 one way or the other whether they have complied. 21 We'll accept his representation. We have no reason 22 to not do that, but what we can do is make our 23 resolution assuming that it's -- the resolution to 24 approve subject to final approval. 25 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: Approval, I 18 1 agree with you. No problem. 2 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Commissioners, any 3 more questions? 4 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: No. 5 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Can I get a 6 motion? 7 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: I'll make the 8 motion to approve it based on the, you know, the 9 approvals of the engineer and the letter from the 10 local municipality. 11 MR. OURY: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: I'll second it. 13 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, on a motion 14 to approve SP-30-05 made by Commissioner Liggio and 15 second by Commissioner Choffo: 16 Commissioner Avagliano? 17 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: I vote aye, 18 as per our freeholder, Mr. Liggio. 19 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Bettinger? 20 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: Aye. 21 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Fitzgibbons? 22 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Aye. 23 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Mehta? 24 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: I will be absent 25 because I was not present entire presentation. 19 1 MR. MARKS: And Chairman Holloway? 2 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Aye. 3 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, the motion 4 passes. 5 MR. OURY: Thank you, Members of the 6 Board. 7 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chair, the next 8 application scheduled for Public Hearing is SP-40-05, 9 Clem's Inc./Coach House Diner at 921 Kennedy 10 Boulevard, North Bergen. 11 MR. ROMANO: Good evening, Mr. 12 Chairman, Members of the Board. Anthony Romano, II, 13 from the firm of Connell Foley, LLP, for the 14 applicant. 15 I'm here with two separate requests to this 16 Board. First, hopefully will not be a problem. 17 We are in receipt of the May 10th, 2005 18 letter of Mr. Marks and the memorandum of his 19 department with respect to their review of the 20 application. Unfortunately, in the period of time 21 since the original submission of the plan and receipt 22 of this letter, my client has retained a new engineer 23 to represent him who could not respond in proper time 24 to be ready for the meeting tonight, so, simply, my 25 first request is that we carry this matter until the 20 1 next meeting of the Board, which I believe is the 2 15th of June. During that period of time we'd like 3 to be able to obviously revise the plans, to discuss 4 them with Mr. Marks and his staff, and hopefully come 5 to a plan that is acceptable to the County and, you 6 know, certainly to the applicant as well. That's my 7 first request. 8 My second request is, is, is related, but it 9 also goes to the actual work that's being done at 10 this particular location. 11 Just to give the Board a little history, we 12 had originally appeared before -- when I say we, the 13 applicant, Clem's, had originally appeared before 14 this Board approximately five years ago in connection 15 with an expansion of the Coach House Restaurant, 16 which is what this project is. At that time we 17 obtained this Board's approval of certain work and, 18 specifically -- I don't want to get, you know, bogged 19 down in too many details, but specifically of concern 20 to us is the approval that this Board had given to 21 the construction of certain landscaping and 22 handicapped access which encroaches to a certain 23 extent on to the sidewalk on Kennedy Boulevard in 24 front of the Coach House. At the time the Board, we 25 think, judiciously agreed that both the landscaping 21 1 and the need for the handicapped was an appropriate 2 application for remedy and for relief and we were 3 granted approval of that plan. We started to 4 implement these plans some years later, after 5 renewing the approvals with the municipality in North 6 Bergen, but through an unfortunate miscommunication, 7 we did not come back to this Board with some changes 8 that did not affect that particular area of the 9 project, but, rather, affected what is really the 10 northwest corner of the property, a property that was 11 acquired in the interim, after the original approval 12 had been obtained. 13 The County, recognizing that additional work 14 needed to be done, came in and asked us to stop doing 15 work on any of the County at that time. My client, 16 of course, agreed to do that and is coming before the 17 Board. However, because of the extent of the work 18 that had actually begun, we are now -- we have a 19 construction site which has severely limited access 20 to the sidewalk, which is also in front of a bus 21 stop, and created what we unfortunately think is 22 somewhat unsafe and a potentially dangerous 23 situation. 24 What I would ask the Board to do is to allow 25 us to continue to finish that part of the project so 22 1 that we can alleviate that dangerous and unsafe 2 condition, you know, as we come back to the Board 3 next, next month to go through this part of the 4 project which, you know, was really what's under 5 consideration and I believe is the subject of the 6 comments that have been made by the staff. 7 Again, what we had proposed, what we had 8 started to do here has already been reviewed and 9 approved by the Board, and, therefore, would not be 10 something that, you know, you could certainly say to 11 us, well, we haven't approved that or we haven't seen 12 it, so we can't let you do it, so the reason we're 13 asking to continue there is, again, to alleviate what 14 we consider to be a potentially dangerous situation 15 with a narrow sidewalk and some construction work. 16 There's some excavation there that's -- you know, 17 we've stopped, and we've certainly, you know, put up 18 barriers, but we're just afraid that that's something 19 that could be a problem, and given the fact that it's 20 already been approved, we'd like to be able to 21 continue with that. 22 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Do you remember 23 when it was approved? 24 MR. ROMANO: I believe it was approved 25 in either 1999 or 2000. I don't have my old file 23 1 tonight. 2 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: You said 3 that the County told you to stop work on that? 4 MR. ROMANO: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Now, did 6 you get the proper permits and approvals? I mean, 7 you need -- did you -- you need permits to do that 8 work from the -- 9 MR. ROMANO: They were obtained 10 originally and apparently those permits were either 11 stale or we couldn't produce them. That's part of 12 the problem. 13 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Did you sit 14 down with the County Engineer? 15 MR. ROMANO: I, I have not at this 16 point sat -- we have not sat down with the County 17 Engineer yet, no. 18 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I don't 19 know whether or not the County has the jurisdiction. 20 Where did you obtain the permits? Through 21 the local government? North Bergen? 22 MR. ROMANO: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Through the 24 construction official? 25 MR. ROMANO: Yes. 24 1 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: And he gave 2 you approvals to do that? 3 MR. ROMANO: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: And North 5 Bergen gave you approval to do that? 6 MR. ROMANO: North Bergen has given us 7 approval for this whole new site plan. 8 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I'm just 9 saying, that other section is new, that you have 10 plans to do. 11 MR. ROMANO: In the back here, yes. 12 They've already approved it. North Bergen has 13 already approved it. 14 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Prior to 15 that, that was approved by North Bergen to do the 16 construction on that site there, right? 17 MR. ROMANO: That's right. A while 18 ago, correct. 19 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: County 20 Engineer came down and told you to stop? 21 MR. ROMANO: That's correct. 22 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Commissioner, the 23 reason why is, they never put an application to the 24 County to do work there. 25 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: No. He got 25 1 approval to do the work. 2 You got approval to do the work in 1999, 3 right? 4 MR. ROMANO: From the County, correct. 5 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: But then 6 you expanded that project? 7 MR. ROMANO: That's correct. 8 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: And that's 9 the reason why the County stopped you from doing more 10 work there? 11 MR. ROMANO: That's correct. 12 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: And your 13 architect sat down and at least made a new 14 application to the County, or sat down and explained, 15 listen, it would be beneficial to the County and the 16 public that the project that was approved prior to 17 that, you know, let you do the work on that? 18 MR. ROMANO: We agree with you 100 19 percent, that we should have come to the County 20 initially. There's no argument with that. 21 Unfortunately, I was only, you know, advised of the 22 situation when I was also told that there was a 23 hearing tonight about a week ago when we got Mr. 24 Marks' letter, and as I indicated, the new engineer 25 has not really had an opportunity to go through this 26 1 or discuss it with Mr. Marks' office yet. You know, 2 the nature of our request here is based on the fact 3 that the County had originally approved this 4 particular design as it, as it involves the Kennedy 5 Boulevard work adjacent to the building with the 6 landscaping and the handicapped ramp, which normally, 7 if it was not a dangerous or a hazardous condition, I 8 would say, you know, we would certainly wait the 30 9 days and, you know, not do any work in the County 10 right-of-way until that was resolved, but because 11 it's resulting in what my client feels is a 12 potentially dangerous situation, where there's a bus 13 stop there and there's a very narrow sidewalk, you 14 know, they're just suggesting that perhaps because 15 the County has already approved that and reviewed it, 16 that that work could continue to alleviate the 17 dangerous situation. That's solely the nature of the 18 application. 19 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I'm 20 wondering, why didn't you just -- you had the 21 approval originally to do some work there. Now you 22 expanded the project. You should have, you should 23 have done the work there and then expand, and then 24 put a new application in, okay, to do -- 25 MR. ROMANO: Well, there are other 27 1 reasons why the project didn't go forward. There 2 were, there were -- there was unrelated reasons 3 involving business opportunities and business issues 4 that did not involve the approval. 5 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: There's two issues 6 here. 7 If you got approval for the area near Kennedy 8 Boulevard already in 1999, you seem -- the Board 9 approved that, that you continue to fix that. 10 MR. ROMANO: Right. 11 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Is there a reason 12 why you waited until now to do it, if it was approved 13 in 1999? 14 MR. ROMANO: Yes, there are. As I 15 said, there was some business issues, opportunities, 16 other factors that were involved that made it prudent 17 for my client not to make the improvements. 18 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: So nothing has 19 changed on the application? 20 MR. ROMANO: No. No. 21 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: And then we maybe 22 table the other part for next month, the new 23 application. 24 MR. CALVANICO: Mr. Chairman, if I 25 might, I don't know if -- that it's really within the 28 1 purview of the Board to split the application to 2 issue an approval partially. If there's an existing 3 approval based upon the original 1999 site plan, that 4 may be something different. 5 What I'd ask is, I'd like the opportunity to 6 speak to the County Engineer. Unfortunately, he's 7 not here tonight to see. If that approval is, in 8 fact, in place, then I don't think there's any action 9 required by the Board. The engineer can just 10 authorize the work to continue rather than have the 11 Board take action, so -- 12 MR. ROMANO: Sure. We'd be happy to 13 do that. In fact, we were hoping he'd be here, 14 because the issue of the dangerous condition was 15 something that we became aware of and something we 16 wanted to try to get involved with. 17 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: What is the 18 actual dangerous condition? 19 MR. ROMANO: Well, you've got a very 20 busy street there, Kennedy Boulevard, and now you 21 have construction which is taking more than half of 22 the sidewalk through excavation and other 23 construction activity, and now, with the combination 24 of there being a bus stop there and a narrower 25 sidewalk, the actual pitch of the road there, and you 29 1 may be familiar with it, is actually quite 2 pronounced, so, you know, it's a dangerous condition 3 for people walking. Cars get very close to that 4 curb. It's a two-line, undivided part of Kennedy 5 right by that relatively crazy intersection of 6 Paterson Plank Road, so we feel that the further away 7 we can keep pedestrians from the actual traveled 8 right-of-way, the safer it's going to be, and, of 9 course, there's also an open excavation there, in the 10 middle of the sidewalk, so that's the nature of the 11 danger. 12 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I'm going 13 to make a motion that if those plans were approved to 14 do that, because I want to protect the County here, 15 if there's a dangerous situation, and you're on 16 record here telling us it is -- 17 MR. ROMANO: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: -- we can 19 have a little legal problem if something happens 20 here. 21 If those plans are approved, and that, you 22 know, Marks can find out through -- from 1999, they 23 should do the work that is on the first set of plans 24 in 1999. When he wants to come in to renew or expand 25 the application, okay, then he has to come before 30 1 this Board, but I feel if it is in a dangerous 2 situation -- I don't know, I don't know the site. Do 3 you know the site? 4 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: I'm not familiar 5 with what's happening. 6 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: If it is in 7 a dangerous situation, I think you have to do the 8 work. I think you have to do the work. 9 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Commissioner? 10 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: Let me say that, 11 like Commissioner mentioned, and even the applicant 12 is also asking the permission for the emergency 13 improvement, to even protect the unsafe environment, 14 so we can just give the permission to do the remedy, 15 to let them make the sidewalk safe. Other than that, 16 even we can hear the application next month, anyway, 17 and applicant is ready to wait for the 30 days, so 18 we'll give the permission only to -- you do the 19 necessary requirements to protect the sidewalk and 20 public. 21 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: I would feel 22 more comfortable with the County Engineer seeing it 23 to make that decision. 24 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: I understand, but 25 the attorney mentioned subject to the County 31 1 Engineer. You can't speak to their engineer, because 2 their engineer is also not here, anyway. 3 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: You know, 4 on that, too, I'm sure that for us to approve that in 5 1999 we gave you the speculation, the specs on what 6 you had to do on that property, on that site there, 7 and you have to go by what, what was approved in 8 1999. 9 Okay? 10 MR. ROMANO: Absolutely. We'll be 11 happy to pull those plans out and go through that in 12 detail with -- 13 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: You just 14 can't do a patch-up job and make it safe. It's got 15 to go by the County regulations. 16 MR. ROMANO: Sure. Absolutely. I 17 agree with that 100 percent. 18 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Is there any 19 reason why we can't have the engineer go this week, 20 see how, what kind of emergency status it is? 21 MR. CALVANICO: Certainly not. I 22 don't see why we can't have the engineer have 23 somebody go up there tomorrow or Friday. 24 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Then he can 25 contact your office, Steve, to find out if it is okay 32 1 to go ahead and continue? 2 MR. MARKS: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: We're not voting 4 on it? 5 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: No. We're not 6 voting on it. We don't have to vote on it. 7 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: Because that 8 particular intersection is crazy, also because it's 9 Paterson Plank Road and then Kennedy Boulevard going 10 north and south, as well as that street also going up 11 and down, so it's like four or five roads are 12 meeting. 13 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: The only problem, 14 that part was already approved and not in front of 15 us, that application. The only one that's in front 16 of us is the new section. 17 MR. ROMANO: We just want to be able 18 to continue the work on that section, basically 19 because it's dangerous. We appreciate the fact that 20 the Board is entitled to review the plan, but there 21 really has been no other change in this plan except 22 in this northwest corner, which is away from that 23 particular part of the project. 24 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Well, I 25 would recommend that, being that it's been approved, 33 1 I think get in touch with the County Engineer and let 2 them go down there tomorrow, have one of your 3 representatives or the agent, an agent down there and 4 speak to the County Engineer. 5 MR. ROMANO: Mr. Jasek? 6 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Or whoever 7 he sends. 8 MR. ROMANO: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: You know, 10 it's approved, so we don't have to approve that. 11 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Right. We don't 12 have to approve that. 13 MR. ROMANO: We were just concerned 14 because we were told that if we start work again -- 15 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: They mean on the 16 new section. 17 MR. ROMANO: I think they actually had 18 stopped us from doing that work. That was why we 19 were concerned. 20 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Well, he 21 has to pull out the 1999 -- that's a long time ago. 22 I was a member of the Board back in 1999, and I don't 23 remember it, so, you know. 24 MR. ROMANO: It was very quick. 25 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Okay, Steve? 34 1 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, we don't 2 have the benefit of the County Engineer or Assistant 3 County Engineer here tonight to respond to the 4 particular changes for the Kennedy Boulevard portion 5 of the work to be -- that's going on, so I would -- 6 I'm just hesitant to either approve or put off or 7 address the existing work. 8 I would encourage the applicant to work with 9 the Engineer's Office just to resolve any matters 10 which may be a liability or may be a danger to the 11 public, but in terms of the actual application from 12 1999, it was an inspector from the County Engineer's 13 Office who brought the matter to the attention of the 14 County Engineering Department and the County Planning 15 Division and it was their allegation that the work 16 that was going on, and I can't get into the details, 17 but that the work that was going on was substantially 18 different from the 1999 application that was made, so 19 I don't think it would be appropriate for the Board 20 to get into the specifics of the 1999 application 21 versus the present application. 22 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Can I have a 23 motion to table it to next month? 24 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: I'll make a 25 motion to table SP-40-05 to next month. 35 1 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: I will second. 2 MR. ROMANO: Will we have an 3 opportunity to discuss this with the engineer in any 4 event? Is that the Board's desire? 5 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Yes. 6 MR. ROMANO: Okay. Great. Thank you, 7 very much. 8 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, on a motion 9 to table SP-40-05 made by Commissioner Bettinger and 10 seconded by Commissioner Mehta: 11 Commissioner Avagliano? 12 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: I vote aye. 13 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Choffo? 14 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: Aye. 15 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Fitzgibbons? 16 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Aye. 17 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Liggio? 18 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: Aye. 19 MR. MARKS: Chairman Holloway? 20 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Aye. 21 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, the motion 22 passes. 23 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Thank you. 24 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, I have a 25 note from the applicant for the next application 36 1 scheduled for Public Hearing, SD-46-05, Licinio 2 Santos, for 423-427 Scott Mobus Place in Harrison, 3 that I guess their architect was not available for 4 this evening and the applicant requests that the 5 matter be put off until the June meeting. 6 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Do I have a motion 7 to postpone this into the next meeting? 8 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: I'll make a 9 motion. 10 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: I'll make a 11 motion. 12 I'll second it. 13 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, on a motion 14 to table SD-46-05 made by Commissioner Choffo and 15 seconded by Commissioner Avagliano: 16 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: Aye. 17 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Bettinger? 18 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: Aye. 19 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Fitzgibbons? 20 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Aye. 21 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Liggio? 22 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: Aye. 23 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Mehta? 24 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: Aye. 25 MR. MARKS: Chairman Holloway? 37 1 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Aye. 2 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, the motion 3 passes. 4 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: Just one second. 6 I would ask our attorney, just for the knowledge 7 purposes, that if somebody took the permission in 8 1999, or how long the permission can be open? It 9 cannot be indefinite. 10 MR. CALVANICO: Well, that's a good 11 question. It's an issue that we discussed at the 12 Site Plan Review Committee because of this particular 13 application. We're looking at that now, the number 14 of town ordinances which limit the approvals for a 15 certain period of time. The County Ordinance, as I 16 understand it now, does not. It may be something we 17 want to address in the amendment rules so that this 18 same kind of situation doesn't occur, but it's an 19 issue we're looking at right now. 20 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: I will appreciate 21 if we can come up with some solution, because I don't 22 agree with any type of permission approval for, like, 23 an indefinite time. 24 MR. CALVANICO: Right. 25 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Steve? 38 1 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: Thank you. 2 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, the next 3 application scheduled for Public Hearing is SP-48-05, 4 Joseph F. Scarbrough, for 302 First Street in 5 Hoboken. 6 MR. MATULE: Good evening, ladies and 7 gentlemen. Robert Matule, appearing on behalf of the 8 applicant, Joseph Scarbrough. 9 I have with me the applicant's architect, 10 James McKnight. Mr. McKnight has appeared before 11 this Board in the past. If we can have him sworn in, 12 and if the Board would like me to qualify him, I 13 will. 14 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Tom, will you 15 swear him in? 16 MR. CALVANICO: Yes. 17 JAMES McKNIGHT, having been first duly sworn 18 according to law, testified as follows: 19 MR. MATULE: Mr. McKnight, can you 20 give the Board the benefit of your professional 21 licensing and your educational background and work 22 experience in the field of architecture? 23 MR. McKNIGHT: I've been a Registered 24 Architect for 25 years in the State of New York, 25 about 23 years in the State of New Jersey. I 39 1 graduated from Cooper University in 1977 in New York 2 City with a Bachelor of Architecture Degree. I've 3 run my own business for the last 20 years. 4 MR. MATULE: And you've appeared 5 before the County Planning Board in the past and been 6 accepted as an expert witness? 7 MR. McKNIGHT: I have, yes. 8 MR. MATULE: You also appeared before 9 local zoning boards and planning boards? 10 MR. McKNIGHT: Correct. 11 MR. MATULE: I would ask that you 12 accept Mr. McKnight as an expert witness. 13 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Okay. 14 MR. MATULE: Mr. McKnight, could you 15 briefly describe for the Board Members what it is 16 that the applicant is seeking approval for at 302 17 First Street in Hoboken? 18 MR. McKNIGHT: Yeah. Site is an empty 19 piece of land, 26 feet wide, 75 feet deep, one 20 building west of Willow on the north side of First 21 Street, which is a commercial street on the ground 22 level in the City of Hoboken. 23 What we're proposing to do is build a 24 six-story building that matches the height of the two 25 adjacent buildings on either side of it, have a 40 1 commercial space on the first floor along with an 2 elevator and stair lobby for four residential units 3 upstairs. 4 MR. MATULE: And did you receive a 5 report from the County Engineer with respect to this 6 project? 7 MR. McKNIGHT: Yes, I did. 8 MR. MATULE: And the report indicates 9 that they want the sidewalks and curb replaced? 10 MR. McKNIGHT: Three different 11 things. Sidewalks and curbs replaced, obtain all 12 necessary road opening permits from the County 13 Engineer's Office, and plant a street tree with at 14 least a 3.5 inch caliber trunk. 15 MR. MATULE: And the applicant is 16 prepared to comply with all those requests? 17 MR. McKNIGHT: Yes, he is. 18 MR. MATULE: The street tree will be 19 subject to approval of the Hoboken Shade Tree 20 Commission? 21 MR. McKNIGHT: Correct. 22 MR. MATULE: I have nothing further, 23 unless any of the Board Members have any. 24 Just for the record, this was approved by the 25 City of Hoboken some time ago and, in fact, permits 41 1 have been taken out. I believe piles, piles have 2 been -- 3 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I know the 4 site and I know on the corner is the five-story, 5 six-story structure and next to it is all new. 6 MR. McKNIGHT: Correct. 7 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Maybe 8 seven, eight-year-old building, brand new, and it 9 looks like a missing tooth. 10 MR. McKNIGHT: That's what it is, some 11 big dental work. 12 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: So I think, 13 personally, you got to fill in that area with 14 something, and as long as you go by what the County 15 says, I'll make the motion to approve it. 16 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Is there any more 17 questions from any other Commissioners? 18 MR. McKNIGHT: Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Can I have a 20 second on the motion? 21 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: I will second. 22 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, on a motion 23 to approve SP-48-05 made by Commissioner Fitzgibbons 24 and seconded by Commissioner Mehta: 25 Commissioner Avagliano? 42 1 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: I vote aye, 2 as per Commissioner Fitzgibbons. I never go against 3 Hoboken. 4 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Bettinger? 5 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: Aye. 6 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Choffo? 7 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: Aye. 8 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Liggio? 9 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: Aye. 10 MR. MARKS: And Chairman Holloway? 11 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Aye. 12 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, the motion 13 passes. 14 MR. MATULE: Thank you, very much. 15 Have a good evening. 16 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Thank you. 17 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, the next 18 application scheduled for Public Hearing is SP-50-05, 19 Port Imperial South, LLC, at Port Imperial Boulevard 20 in Weehawken. 21 MR. DALY: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, 22 ladies and gentlemen of the Board. Joseph T. Daly, 23 Weiner Lesniak, behalf of the applicant, Port 24 Imperial South, LLC. 25 I'd like to present, as my first witness, Mr. 43 1 Joseph Gurkovich. 2 You want to swear the witness? 3 JOSEPH GURKOVICH, having been first duly sworn 4 according to law, testified as follows: 5 MR. CALVANICO: State your name and 6 firm. 7 MR. GURKOVICH: Joseph Gurkovich, 8 G-U-R-K-O-V-I-C-H. 9 MR. DALY: Mr. Gurkovich, by whom are 10 you employed? 11 MR. GURKOVICH: Roseland Property 12 Company. 13 MR. DALY: And what is your position 14 there? 15 MR. GURKOVICH: I'm a Vice President 16 of Land Development. 17 MR. DALY: And are you a Licensed 18 Planner in the State of New Jersey? 19 MR. GURKOVICH: Yes, I am. 20 MR. DALY: And have you been qualified 21 as such before this Board and testified before this 22 Board in the past? 23 MR. GURKOVICH: Yes, I have. 24 MR. DALY: Okay. I'd ask the Board to 25 accept his qualifications as a planner. 44 1 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Yes. 2 MR. DALY: Can you describe the 3 project that we're here before the Board on tonight? 4 This is a continuation of the planned 5 development in Weehawken known as Port Imperial 6 South. This is one of the phases. I'll defer to Mr. 7 Gurkovich now. 8 MR. GURKOVICH: As you recall -- 9 MR. DALY: Can you see it? 10 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: No. 11 MR. GURKOVICH: I'll try to point it 12 all out. 13 As you know, we have been here quite a few 14 times before the Board for various applications, 15 mostly on Port Imperial North, which is in West New 16 York. We have been here once before for the site 17 plan application for the property in the center of, 18 which is the brownstones, which are 42 townhomes 19 which have just been completed, and all but two or 20 three are sold. 21 Just to give you some orientation, again, on 22 the right-hand side of this drawing, this line here 23 represents the West New York/Weehawken municipal 24 boundary. South of that is where they're currently 25 building the ferry terminal. South of that, again, 45 1 is the existing ferry terminal parking lot, Pershing 2 Road Bridge, again, the brownstones. Application 3 we're here for tonight, which is the 164 townhome and 4 condominium units known as the Banana Building 5 Development, and further south of that in this open 6 space area will be the future Weehawken Township 7 Park, which has just begun construction. 8 MR. DALY: Now, just for the record, 9 can you testify as to what plan you're referring to? 10 MR. GURKOVICH: Yes. This is the plan 11 in the application set which is SE-3, identified as 12 orientation plan, and the date is 2-28-05. 13 MR. DALY: Now, has the applicant 14 appeared before the Weehawken Planning Board and 15 received site plan approval for this? 16 MR. GURKOVICH: Yes, we did. I 17 believe April 5th was the last meeting night where it 18 was approved. 19 MR. DALY: Okay. Do you have anything 20 further on this sheet? 21 MR. GURKOVICH: No. 22 MR. DALY: Okay. 23 MR. GURKOVICH: The next drawing that 24 I have up here is the drawing SP-01 from the 25 architectural sheet. It's the same sheet you have in 46 1 your package except it's color-rendered. Again, same 2 orientation from the previous plan. This is the 3 north end where the existing brownstone building -- 4 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Excuse me. Tom, 5 should we mark that exhibit? 6 MR. CALVANICO: Yes. Mark this one as 7 Exhibit-2. 8 MR. DALY: A-2. 9 And we'll mark the other one A-1? 10 MR. CALVANICO: Yes. 11 MR. DALY: This is in your packet. 12 While I'm marking, Mr. Gurkovich, if you 13 would describe the development to the Board. 14 MR. GURKOVICH: As I started to say, 15 on the right-hand side of the drawing, which is the 16 north end, is where the existing brownstone 17 development is. It's comprised of four groups of 18 buildings. In each group of building there is a 19 six-story condominium unit building along Port 20 Imperial Boulevard. Each one of these units has 24 21 units in it as well as 26 parking spaces specifically 22 for those residents. In the horseshoe-shaped units, 23 these are four-story townhomes. Each one of these 24 units has a two-car garage, and as you can see, in 25 here there is parking with a plaza on top of it. 47 1 This unit has 23 dwellings in it; this one has 19; 2 the next one north has 15, and then 11. There's a 3 total of 264 parking spaces specifically reserved for 4 the residences. There's also 67 parking spaces on an 5 interior road that comes in at the south, goes 6 eastward and then travels north along the waterfront 7 walkway, which we have approved by the NJDEP, and 8 then there's another exit or entry road at the north 9 end, and there's access drives in between each of the 10 units for access into the particular parking areas. 11 MR. DALY: And for the record, Mr. 12 Gurkovich, the applicant's obtained the necessary 13 waterfront development permit from the New Jersey 14 Department of Environmental Protection for this 15 phase? 16 MR. GURKOVICH: Yes, we have. 17 MR. DALY: And the waterfront walkway 18 is in compliance with the waterfront walkway mandated 19 by the New Jersey Department of Environmental 20 Protection? 21 MR. GURKOVICH: Yes, it is. 22 MR. DALY: Okay. 23 MR. GURKOVICH: Just, in addition to 24 that, this was approved by the town for the storm 25 water management where all the storm drainage drains 48 1 to the water and there is a storm filter system at 2 each discharge point. 3 MR. DALY: And was a traffic report 4 submitted to this Board and the Weehawken Planning 5 Board? 6 MR. GURKOVICH: Yes, there was. 7 MR. DALY: And who was it prepared 8 by? 9 MR. GURKOVICH: This traffic report, 10 which I believe has been submitted to the Board, is 11 entitled Port Imperial South Plan Development, Phase 12 I, Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Edwards & 13 Kelcey, Inc. 14 MR. DALY: Okay. And -- 15 MR. GURKOVICH: Specifically, by Scott 16 Parker, Professional Engineer. 17 MR. DALY: And does Edwards & Kelcey 18 prepare the traffic report for the entire plan 19 development when it was approved? 20 MR. GURKOVICH: Yes, they did. 21 MR. DALY: And what are the 22 conclusions of the traffic study for this particular 23 phase of the development? 24 MR. GURKOVICH: Well, if I may, I'd 25 like to read a paragraph from page 29 of the report, 49 1 which gives the summary. 2 It's reviewing the level of service tables 3 that he's prepared, and it says: It can be seen that 4 the traffic generated by the Phase I Development will 5 have no significant impacts to the study 6 intersections along Port Imperial Boulevard. The 7 study intersections will continue to operate at good 8 to excellent levels of service, (level of service A 9 to level of service C). The driveway to the Banana 10 Building Townhomes will operate at good to acceptable 11 levels of service during the peak hours. 12 MR. DALY: I have nothing further of 13 this witness. 14 I have my engineer, Mr. Thomas Creelman of 15 Paul, Sokalaski and Sorter (phonetic), if they have 16 any engineering questions they want to address. 17 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: I just want to let 18 the Board know that the County Engineer only had the 19 traffic study impact, nothing else. 20 Any questions? 21 MR. DALY: Yes. We haven't received 22 any reports from anyone. 23 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Did the 24 County Engineer review this project completely? 25 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Yes. The only 50 1 thing he wanted was the traffic study. 2 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, to confirm, 3 to agree with Mr. Gurkovich, after the letter was 4 sent to Roseland Properties -- Port Imperial, we did 5 receive back the traffic impact report. 6 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Okay. Any more 7 questions from the Commissioners? 8 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: I think a couple 9 of, couple of months or six months ago you -- that 10 application came for the subdivision application. 11 MR. DALY: Yes. Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: And at that time 13 I think you asked for, like, 11 subdivision -- or how 14 many was that? 15 MR. DALY: That was in the north end, 16 and maybe I can show it to you better up here. 17 That's what we called the north end subdivision, 18 which basically ran from Pershing Road up to the west 19 border, and one lot was just south of Pershing Road. 20 What they did was subdivide this into lots that 21 additional buildings will be created on, a street 22 grid pattern, so that's what we had previously 23 obtained at our last hearing here, but this is south 24 of that. This is Pershing. This, down here. 25 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: Where is the 51 1 existing parking lot? 2 MR. DALY: Right here. 3 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: I just wanted to 4 find out, this, the Pershing was not part of that 5 particular application? 6 MR. DALY: No. 7 MR. GURKOVICH: No, but this was part 8 of the subdivision, probably Summer of 2004, which 9 came before this Board. 10 MR. DALY: Yes. When we subdivided 11 the lots for the park, and we'll be back in for each 12 lot when we go in before Weehawken, so you'll be 13 seeing a lot of us. 14 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: Okay, sorry. 15 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Go ahead. 16 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: I'm finished. 17 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Oh, you asked 18 already. 19 Any more questions? 20 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I'll make a 21 motion to approve it. 22 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: I'll second 23 it. 24 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, on a motion 25 to approve SP-50-05, Port Imperial South, LLC, made 52 1 by Commissioner Fitzgibbons and seconded by 2 Commissioner Bettinger: 3 Commissioner Avagliano? 4 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: I vote aye. 5 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Choffo? 6 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: Aye. 7 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Liggio? 8 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: Aye. 9 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Mehta? 10 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: Aye. 11 MR. MARKS: Chairman Holloway? 12 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Aye. 13 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, the motion 14 passes. 15 MR. DALY: Thank you. 16 MR. GURKOVICH: Thank you. 17 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, the final 18 application scheduled for Public Hearing this evening 19 is SP-51-05, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, at 70 20 Hudson Street in Hoboken. 21 MR. LEVINE: Good evening. My name is 22 Michael Levine. I'm an attorney with Pitney Hardin 23 on behalf New Cingular Wireless. 24 We're proposing to co-locate 25 telecommunications antennas and electronic equipment 53 1 cabinets on the roof of the seven-story office 2 building on 70 Hudson, just off of Observer Highway 3 in Hoboken. 4 I have with me this evening the Civil 5 Engineer who prepared our plans that were submitted 6 both to Hoboken and the County. I'd like to 7 introduce him and get him sworn in so we can briefly 8 review our proposal with you. 9 MR. CALVANICO: Could you state your 10 name, for the record? 11 MR. ROMANO: My name is Arif Malick, 12 M-A-L-I-C-K. 13 ARIF MALICK, having been first duly sworn according 14 to law, testified as follows: 15 MR. LEVINE: Arif, could you review 16 your educational background and professional 17 experience for the Board, please? 18 MR. MALICK: I have a Bachelors and a 19 Masters in Civil Engineering and presently I'm 20 licensed in the State of New Jersey, New York and 21 Pennsylvania, and principal in the firm of Malick and 22 Scher. 23 MR. LEVINE: I'd ask this gentleman be 24 qualified to testify in the civil engineering aspect. 25 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Yes. 54 1 MR. LEVINE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 2 Could you briefly describe the proposed 3 installation we're seeking approval for this 4 evening? 5 Are those just mounted copies of the plan 6 we've submitted? 7 MR. MALICK: Yes, they are. 8 MR. LEVINE: Have you rendered or 9 altered those in any way? 10 MR. MALICK: No. 11 MR. LEVINE: Perhaps you could just 12 refer to those, again, by sheet number, as you would 13 review it, briefly. 14 MR. MALICK: Yes. First plan sheet 15 that we are looking at is entitled site plan. It is 16 drawing number SP-1, last revised on April 21st of 17 this year. 18 Want to go ahead, Mike? 19 MR. LEVINE: Yeah, go ahead. 20 MR. MALICK: What we're looking at 21 here, on this sheet, again, entitled site plan, is a 22 plain view of the building, of the area where this 23 existing building is. This existing building, which 24 Cingular Wireless is proposing to, you know, develop 25 as part of the wireless network in our wireless 55 1 facility is located -- or the street address of 70 2 Hudson Street. It's, you know, not a huge building. 3 You know, it's approximately 55 feet wide, 4 approximately 100 feet deep. Of course, the front of 5 the building is Hudson Street, and as part of this 6 development, basically, six equipment cabinets, 7 different sizes, but approximately the size of a 8 refrigerator, if you will, will be installed or 9 located on its own platform on the roof of this 10 building, and in addition to those equipment 11 cabinets, a total of 12 panel antennas will be 12 installed on the roof. Basically, a group of four, 13 you know, so, basically, three sectors that they'll 14 be covering for the site, which is very typical 15 application of this, for the wireless site. Two of 16 the sectors, basically two of the sectors which, you 17 know, consist of -- each will be stealth, you know. 18 It will be covered by a radio frequency material 19 which will basically hide them behind those, you 20 know, panels, which will be same color as the 21 exterior of this building, and the last -- another 22 sector, a total of four antennas will be mounted, 23 flush-mounted on an existing bulkhead which is 24 already on the roof of this building. 25 MR. LEVINE: So the entire facility 56 1 would be on the roof of this building; is that 2 correct? 3 MR. MALICK: That's correct. 4 MR. LEVINE: So as a result of this 5 will there be any increase in impervious coverage? 6 MR. MALICK: No. 7 MR. LEVINE: Will there be any change 8 at all in the existing drainage pattern on the site? 9 MR. MALICK: No, there won't be. 10 MR. LEVINE: Is this facility 11 unmanned? 12 MR. MALICK: Yes. That is correct. 13 MR. LEVINE: Is it safe to say there 14 will be no impact in terms of traffic generation or 15 circulation at the site? 16 MR. MALICK: That is correct. Yeah, 17 there shouldn't be any. 18 MR. LEVINE: I don't know if you have 19 anything further, but he would be pleased to answer 20 any follow-up questions. 21 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Any questions from 22 the Commissioners? 23 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: 70 Hudson 24 Street I know very well. Next to it is the old 25 hotel, The Hotel Edwards that I, as an inspector, 57 1 inspected 100 times. It's not there no more. It's 2 out of business, but is that the gray building next 3 to it? 4 MR. MALICK: Correct. Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: That's a 6 commercial building, right? 7 MR. MALICK: Yes. I believe so, yes. 8 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: No 9 residential? 10 MR. MALICK: No. 11 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I don't 12 know what to say about that. I mean, it doesn't 13 affect the residents there, you know. 14 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: Is there any 15 other antennas on the building currently? 16 MR. MALICK: No. No. 17 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: Do you have an 18 elevation of what it would look like? 19 MR. MALICK: Yes. 20 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Excuse me. Can we 21 mark that Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2, please? 22 MR. CALVANICO: Plan sheet will be 23 SP-1. 24 MR. MALICK: Exhibit-1? 25 MR. CALVANICO: Yes, please. 58 1 MR. MALICK: Go ahead and mark this 2 one as Exhibit-2? 3 MR. CALVANICO: Yes, and identify it 4 by plan sheet. 5 What's the number? 6 MR. MALICK: Yes. The plan sheet that 7 we are looking at right now is entitled elevation and 8 details, with a drawing number A, and I'm going to 9 label this as Exhibit-2. 10 What we are looking at on this plan sheet is 11 elevation view, basically two elevation views of this 12 building. One, one of them which is, which is really 13 from the front is the Hudson Street one. You know, 14 you're looking at the building, at the building, you 15 know, standing on Hudson Street, if you will, and 16 what you're looking at is -- now, again, these 17 elevations we use are, they are drawn purely as an 18 engineering elevation, meaning that, you know, you're 19 not necessarily looking at the street level going 20 this way, you're almost looking at all the elevations 21 straight through. The reason that I point that out 22 is that standing here, you won't be able to see a lot 23 of these elements. What we are looking at here is, 24 again, on this elevation view it shows this existing 25 elevator bulkhead. It's a little room on the top of 59 1 the roof there, and in front of this thing or side of 2 this thing you have one of those, you know, antennas 3 shown. This is one of the sectors, I believe this is 4 sector A, which is shooting towards 25 degrees from 5 the north, and you look at the side of the antenna -- 6 and these are antennas which are, which are 7 flush-mounted to the bulkhead. The top of the 8 antenna does not extend higher than the bulkhead. 9 They're basically just flush with the thing and they 10 will be painted, again, with that gray color to match 11 the exterior of this building. 12 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Is there 13 going to be any on the Court Street side? 14 MR. MALICK: I believe so. Let's -- 15 I'm back on Exhibit-1, which is a view -- let's get 16 orientation of all the antennas again. 17 Yes. The sector two and three, or sector B 18 and C, if you will, are basically facing towards the 19 Court Street. However, these are the two sectors 20 which will be enclosed with, you know, stealth 21 material, that you won't be able to see the antenna, 22 necessarily, and they are somewhat set back from the 23 corner at an angle. 24 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: How tall is that 25 building? 60 1 MR. MALICK: It's about 70 feet, 2 seven-story building. 3 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: What type of roof 4 it is? 5 MR. MALICK: It's probably like a, you 6 know, kind of, you know, brick, concrete kind of 7 building, so the roof is basically concrete. 8 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: It's an old 9 building. 10 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Is there a weight 11 requirement for any of this equipment that's on any 12 type of building? 13 MR. MALICK: Well, well, every 14 building, you know, is different in a sense that -- 15 and especially older buildings. Newer buildings are 16 easy. You can find the plans, you can find out what 17 the plan says, office building, courthouse, library 18 being the most as far as loading goes. Typically, 19 the roof of the building, depending on when it was 20 built, what kind of material it is, you have to make 21 some good structural judgment calls. Okay? Now, it 22 can -- based on what you see here, it could be 23 originally designed or what it's designed for ranges 24 anywhere from, like, 50, 60 pounds per square feet to 25 sometimes, you know, much higher, 100 feet. 61 1 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: So this building 2 can -- 3 MR. MALICK: 150 pounds per square 4 feet. 5 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: This building can 6 support the weight of that equipment? 7 MR. MALICK: Absolutely. That is 8 something that our liability and, you know, something 9 that's real, and we did issue a letter to the 10 Professional Engineer from our office, who was 11 responsible for the structural analysis and detailing 12 and what have you, analyzing, making sure that -- 13 what load we're adding to the roof, if you will, or 14 basically it's, it never goes directly to the roof, 15 if you will, we always pick columns. You'll never 16 find a building that you can add a load to, so you 17 find columns, and then we make sure that, you know, 18 it's going to be safe, if you will, and the letter 19 was issued for this thing, this site. 20 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: And there's 21 nothing hanging off the side of the facade, of the 22 building? 23 MR. MALICK: No. 24 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Did you get 25 permits from the construction official to do that 62 1 work? 2 MR. LEVINE: We haven't even received 3 site plan approval from the Planning Board yet. They 4 haven't scheduled us for a hearing. We submitted the 5 County application simultaneously with the 6 application to the Hoboken Planning Board. 7 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: All we can 8 do for you tonight is approve it pending the outcome 9 of the Hoboken Planning Board, and then you have to 10 get permits -- 11 MR. LEVINE: Yes. Yes. We fully 12 understand. 13 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: -- from the 14 local construction official. 15 MR. LEVINE: After we get our site 16 plan approval, exactly. 17 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Any more 18 questions? 19 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I make a 20 motion to approve it pending the approval from the 21 Hoboken Planning Board and that he gets proper 22 permits from the construction official. 23 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: I'll second 24 that. 25 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, on a motion 63 1 made by Commissioner Fitzgibbons and seconded by 2 Commissioner Liggio, on SP-51-05: 3 Commission Avagliano? 4 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: I vote aye. 5 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Bettinger? 6 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: Aye. 7 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Choffo? 8 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: I vote aye, per 9 Commissioner Fitzgibbons' recommendations. 10 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Mehta? 11 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: Aye. 12 MR. MARKS: And Chairman Holloway? 13 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Aye. 14 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, the motion 15 passes. 16 MR. LEVINE: Thank you, very much. 17 MR. MALICK: Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Thank you. 19 MR. LEVINE: Is it your preference to 20 hold on to these marked exhibits or can we take 21 them? 22 MR. CALVANICO: You can take them. 23 Thank you. 24 MR. LEVINE: Thank you. 25 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, that 64 1 concludes the applications scheduled for Public 2 Hearing this evening. 3 The only item left on the Agenda under Old 4 Business is the approval of the RFP for Professional 5 Engineering Services. I handed out an RFP for 6 Professional Planning Services at last month's 7 meeting. I received back comments from the County 8 Engineer. I incorporated those comments and sent out 9 the revised RFP with the Planning Board Agenda. 10 Commissioner Mehta had asked us about the, the 11 Professional Consulting Engineer at last month's 12 meeting. It turns out that the Planning Board had 13 been -- I'm sorry. It turns out that the Consulting 14 Engineer had been working without a contract for the 15 last five or seven years. According to Local Public 16 Contract Law, we have to issue a new contract on an 17 annual basis and it's County policy to let RP's for 18 these sort of services. 19 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: This is just to 20 put it out? 21 MR. MARKS: This is to put it -- to 22 circulate it. 23 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Question. 24 Doesn't the Board of Freeholders have to vote on it? 25 MR. MARKS: There is a question. I 65 1 spoke with Kathy Grant, who is legal counsel with the 2 Law Department. She advised me -- and I asked Mr. 3 Calvanico to look into the matter. She advised me, 4 since the consultant would be paid out of escrow 5 funds and not County tax dollars, per se, it was her 6 opinion that it would not need freeholder approval, 7 but just to be, to be fair and thorough, I would ask 8 the, the Planning Board attorney to issue his own 9 legal advice to the Board. 10 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Tom? 11 MR. CALVANICO: I'm going to look at 12 this. I don't have an answer for us at this point. 13 I think, I think that Kathy's right, Grant is right 14 in terms of her opinion, it is paid with the escrow 15 funds, but I'll double-check that and make sure for 16 you. 17 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: When do you 18 anticipate us to vote on this? Any particular, any 19 particular time table? 20 MR. MARKS: The RFP -- the proposals, 21 according to the RFP, are due back, I believe June 22 15th, so we can report -- I can report to the Board 23 at the next meeting how many proposals came back, and 24 it would be up to you, Mr. Chairman, to devise a way 25 of evaluating the proposals either by the Board as a 66 1 whole or a, you know, standing committee or an ad hoc 2 committee. 3 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Do I have to make 4 that decision now? I don't. 5 Do we have a motion to approve for the RP to 6 go out? 7 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: I'll make a 8 motion. 9 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: I will second it. 10 MR. MARKS: Okay. Mr. Chairman, on a 11 motion made by Commissioner Bettinger and seconded by 12 Commissioner Mehta: 13 Commissioner Avagliano? 14 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: I vote aye. 15 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Choffo? 16 COMMISSIONER CHOFFO: Aye. 17 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Fitzgibbons? 18 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Aye. 19 MR. MARKS: Commissioner Liggio? 20 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: Aye. 21 MR. MARKS: And Chairman Holloway? 22 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Aye. 23 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, that motion 24 passes. 25 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Thank you. 67 1 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: Chairman, I will 2 request that if we receive more than one or two 3 application or proposal for this project, then at the 4 site plan meeting we can allot some time to discuss 5 even the proposal so you can -- they can come up with 6 the recommendation for the entire Board. 7 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Okay. Anything? 8 MR. CALVANICO: I have a couple 9 things, Mr. Chairman, before we leave, if the Board 10 doesn't have anything else. 11 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Go ahead. 12 MR. CALVANICO: Just as a follow-up to 13 a couple of items which we brought up last month; one 14 of the them had to do with Hoboken and the cellular 15 phone towers. I think the attorney, one of the 16 attorneys who appeared before us last month indicated 17 that the City of Hoboken had a very comprehensive 18 ordinance respecting cellular phones, cell phone 19 antennas, and I spoke with Joe Sherman, the County -- 20 the Town Counsel down there and he provided a copy of 21 it to me. It is very comprehensive, it's 16 pages 22 long, so what I'm going to do is review this with the 23 County Law Department and see if this might be 24 something that we want to incorporate, or at least 25 something along these lines in terms of the County. 68 1 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Is there anything 2 in there about how many cell phone companies can put 3 one on a building? 4 MR. CALVANICO: Yes. They have -- I 5 didn't -- I don't have all the details, because I 6 just got it and I just started to look at it, but 7 yes, they are -- they prioritize where they're 8 allowed to put them. They have lots of 9 specifications about how they can be installed and 10 how many can be installed and where and all of that 11 sort of thing, so I can provide copies. 12 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Yeah. 13 There was a problem because what you find is people 14 putting these cell phones, these satellite antennas 15 up all over the place. I caught a couple of them. 16 They didn't get permits from the city. They're just 17 coming in and they're just -- and that's what 18 happened. Another thing is that sooner or later I 19 think the Fire Safety Bureau in Trenton is going to 20 have some kind of specs on those, some kind of 21 antennas on top of roofs, because it might -- in 22 fact, if there's a fire, they want to go vent the 23 roof, it's going to put a hindrance on the fire 24 department, but I suggest that as far as Hoboken's 25 concerned, I don't think we should approve right now, 69 1 I mean, unless Hoboken approves it first. This way 2 we could actually go to -- well, you want to put it 3 up, get the approvals from Hoboken and, you know, we 4 don't have the battle of, you know, they get the 5 approval and then we can go along with it. 6 MR. CALVANICO: We'll certainly make 7 our resolution contingent upon approval by the local 8 municipality. We always do that, and then there were 9 a couple of items that were brought up by Bob Jasek, 10 the County Engineer, in terms of applicants who had 11 been back before this Board, received approvals and 12 were not complying with the actual approvals that 13 they obtained. I've been working with Demetrio on 14 that and discussing it with someone. One of the big 15 ones was FDP, which is the big wetlands filling 16 operation on Secaucus Road there, and I spoke with 17 their attorney today. He's having -- he wasn't aware 18 that there was an issue with the County, so he was 19 meeting with his client. He told me he would get 20 back to me as soon as he did that, so I'll report 21 back to the Board as soon as that conversation is 22 complete. 23 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Here is 24 another problem, too. 25 When we approve a plan, all right -- 70 1 MR. CALVANICO: Yes, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: -- and we 3 approve it through a certain developer or owner, and 4 then four, five years later somebody comes back and 5 it's a different guy, I mean, and then they want to 6 change the plans, I mean, there should be a time 7 limit on how long this, how long -- 8 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: That's what we 9 were saying, Commissioner. He's looking into it so 10 we -- 11 MR. CALVANICO: That's another 12 admission we're also looking at in terms of a 13 possible amendment to why this Board operates either 14 by ordinance or its own bylaws in terms of how long 15 does an approval last without any action being taken, 16 so that's another issue that we're looking at now. 17 We'll come up with some way to resolve that or 18 address that issue. 19 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Anything else? 20 MR. CALVANICO: That's all I have. 21 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 22 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: I have one thing 23 for the Commissioners. 24 If we can try to get the Local Government 25 Ethnic Law Disclosure in, I'd appreciate it. 71 1 Everyone got the application. 2 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: I don't know. 3 Can I have the application? 4 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Steve, do you have 5 any applications? 6 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: It was in the 7 envelope. Everyone got it mailed to them. It was in 8 the envelope. 9 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: Mr. Chairman, a 10 question on that. 11 I filed one through the County Clerk or 12 through, you know, the Freeholders' Clerk's Office. 13 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: One for here? 14 MR. MARKS: Maybe the -- it's my 15 understanding, I may be incorrect, it's my 16 understanding that anybody who has multiple titles 17 would have to file an application pertaining to their 18 particular title, so I -- 19 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: You all have to do 20 it three times. 21 MR. MARKS: That's my understanding, 22 you know. 23 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: Give me a legal 24 opinion on it -- 25 MR. MARKS: Right. 72 1 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: -- on Planning 2 Board Council, County Council and Freeholder Board 3 Council and let me know. 4 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I sit on 5 the Hudson County Construction Board of Appeals, so 6 do I have to do the same thing, file separate? 7 MR. MARKS: I'm not an attorney, so I 8 can't issue legal advice. I can just tell you that's 9 my understanding. 10 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: I marked all three 11 down here. 12 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I got to 13 find that. I got to find that. 14 MR. CALVANICO: I haven't looked at 15 that, but my understanding is that you do have to 16 file one for each public position that you're on. 17 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Do you have 18 any copies on you? 19 MR. CALVANICO: I'm just looking, Mr. 20 Commissioner. I think I had one in here. I don't 21 know if I still do. 22 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: And I'll 23 mail it to ya's. 24 MR. MARKS: I can send them back out 25 to the Commissioners. 73 1 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Could you? 2 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Can you do 3 me a favor, put two in there? 4 MR. MARKS: Sure. 5 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: So I can 6 send the two of them out, one to the Construction 7 Board of Appeals. 8 MR. MARKS: Certainly. 9 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Just so you know, 10 for the record, it's a $500 fine if you don't put it 11 in. 12 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: Is it? 13 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: What's the 15 deadline? 16 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: A month ago. 17 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: No. 18 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: There's a 19 deadline? 20 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: April 30th was 21 the deadline. 22 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: April 30th, but 23 they'll date it. 24 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: There's no 25 dead -- 74 1 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Yes, there is. 2 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I was laid 3 up in April. 4 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, for the 5 record, I received the applications for the Board 6 after the deadline, they were due, so I sent it out. 7 MR. CALVANICO: The deadline is April 8 30th. 9 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: Yeah, but I 10 got it last week. I got it last week. 11 MR. CALVANICO: I do have it. We can 12 make copies for those Commissioners that -- 13 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: I got it last 14 week in the mail. The Agenda was late again, one 15 week. 16 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Steve? 17 MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, under new 18 business, I just have one more item to mention to the 19 Board, and it's related to the escrow fees. 20 The County Planning Board for the last 21 20-odd-years collects escrow fees for larger, major 22 site plans and major subdivisions. According to law, 23 whatever is not spent directly on the site plan, for 24 the review of the site plan should go back to the 25 applicant. It's been the practice of the County not 75 1 to return the escrow fees, the escrow deposits back 2 to the applicants. It presents a bit of bookkeeping 3 and accounting problem for the County. We actually 4 have funds from applicants going back over 10 years, 5 so this isn't a new problem. My affiliation with the 6 Board is 10-months-old. I'm trying to clean it up. 7 I've discussed it with the Administration, with the 8 County Administrator, specifically, and it's one of 9 those issues, since this is according to Kathy Grant 10 from the Law Department, a Board with contracting 11 authority, and you're dealing with escrow monies as 12 opposed to property tax dollars, it would be within 13 the Board's interest, and I think it would be 14 appropriate that we also let a RFP to hire a firm to 15 basically reconcile 10 years of escrow accounts and 16 have the County make checks back to the applicants 17 whose fees or escrow deposits were not used up in 18 reviewing their applications. 19 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Maybe you want to 20 notify the Planning Board of the issue, telling me 21 that we can either hire a separate group to look at 22 these sites that are making sure that -- to use some 23 of that money. 24 MR. MARKS: Sure. 25 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: And the new 76 1 applicants -- 2 MR. MARKS: That would definitely be 3 germane. At the last Site Plan Committee Meeting I 4 told the Chairman about the problem, and not to put 5 words in your mouth, Mr. Chairman, maybe if you want 6 to mention it, you were interested in avoiding 7 problems which Mr. Calvanico was looking at, to go 8 back for larger applications in which there may or 9 may not be problems and actually have either County 10 staff or somebody make sure that the applicants lived 11 up to the, the comments and conditions of their 12 Planning Board approvals, and then, certainly I'm not 13 an attorney, but I think that would be within the 14 scope of the escrow fees. 15 COMMISSIONER BETTINGER: How much are 16 we talking about, Steve? 17 MR. MARKS: It's a quarter of a 18 million dollars. 19 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: We go on 20 vacation. It's okay. 21 MR. CALVANICO: One of the issues, one 22 of the issues is that right now the Engineering 23 Department fees are not charged back to the escrow 24 account, so because Mr. Jasek doesn't have a big 25 enough staff to do it, he doesn't really go out and 77 1 check the applicants to see that they actually 2 comply. If someone complains or one of his 3 inspectors happens to see something, they'll bring it 4 to his attention, but they don't affirmatively go out 5 and do it. Similarly, with the fees paid for legal 6 fees, they could be charged, and it should be charged 7 to that escrow account and then the County won't have 8 to pay for that. I'm sure the Freeholders would be 9 happy to find that they weren't paying my salary and 10 that it was coming out of the developer's fee, or, 11 rather, it should. Those are the things that we 12 talked about trying to set up going forward. What 13 Steve is saying is because we have this money out 14 there, and a lot of it belongs to developers who 15 appeared here over the last 10 or more years, we need 16 to figure out how to resolve that. We probably need 17 some kind of an accounting firm, someone to come in, 18 reconcile those accounts, to find out who paid, how 19 much was charged to them, how much could possibly be 20 charged to them for services rendered and then return 21 whatever is left so that we have a new, new slate and 22 start going forward that way. 23 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Do we have to -- 24 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: I was going to 25 ask, what do we -- what type of services or, you 78 1 know, activities do we charge against these escrow 2 fees? What type of things do we do that we charge 3 against these activity fees? 4 MR. CALVANICO: We charge inspection 5 fees, legal fees, the engineering fees for the RFP, 6 we just authorized those kinds of things, even 7 planning office time. 8 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: But right now it's 9 going through the County budget; am I correct, which 10 doesn't have to? 11 MR. CALVANICO: Right. 12 MR. MARKS: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER LIGGIO: Right. So, in 14 other words, we have been, we have been taking these 15 escrow fees all along but we haven't been spending 16 them properly, we haven't been spending them, we have 17 been charging them as -- 18 MR. MARKS: For larger scale 19 operations, which we had outside consultants, 20 engineering consultants review and work with the 21 applicants. Then those escrow fees were charged or 22 the consultants charged the escrow fees. Mr. Jasek's 23 not here, so I don't want to address that 24 specifically. Mr. Jasek had been charging, I guess 25 his time or his staff's time against the, against the 79 1 escrow deposits, but I'm not sure exactly. I don't 2 know what the methodology is, so without Mr. Jasek 3 being here, I wouldn't want to address that. 4 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: I think, 5 Chairman, I can suggest that if we are doing RFP for 6 the engineering firm, can we do the one other RFP for 7 the accounting firm, where we can hire for the short 8 time so you can straighten out this accounting 9 problem? 10 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Yes. That's why I 11 was going to ask, Steve, can we use the balance of 12 the money that we have now before we give it back to 13 pay for the accountant, straighten it out? 14 MR. MARKS: It would be chargeable, 15 the accounting firm, a CPA, if you will, since 16 they're a licensed profession, their time would be 17 chargeable against the escrow fees, so it wouldn't be 18 coming out of County tax dollars, it would, again, be 19 their time and fee would come out of the, would be 20 charged against the escrow deposits themselves in 21 order -- otherwise, it's just -- I don't -- my staff, 22 myself, I don't have the know-how or the, or the 23 wherewithal to go back through hundreds of 24 applications, average 100 per year, you got 1,000 25 applications. 80 1 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: I think right now 2 we can start with the last 10 years project, but in 3 the same time, in the future we can hire the 4 accounting firm on the regular business so we can -- 5 we don't have that accumulation. At the same time, 6 it can be reported properly, the finances. 7 MR. MARKS: I think if we hire the 8 right firm, which could devise a methodology, we'd be 9 able to incorporate that methodology in-house from 10 that point forward. I don't think that would be, you 11 know, just a simple spreadsheet. 12 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: We can put an RFP 13 out for some firms that can do the inspections in the 14 near future. 15 MR. MARKS: That can certainly be part 16 of it. 17 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Would the 18 charge -- would the County Engineer charge for their 19 inspection, and the money that we have, are you going 20 to have -- it's going to be, like an audit, right? 21 MR. MARKS: Exactly. 22 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: And now, in 24 the future the money that we spend on a lawyer, the 25 County, we're going to save the County money? 81 1 MR. MARKS: Exactly. 2 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: Right. Exactly. 3 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Right, and 4 if there's money left over, maybe we could hire, not 5 us, the County could hire more personnel for the 6 County Engineer's Department to go out on the road 7 and do the inspections. 8 COMMISSIONER AVAGLIANO: There's a 9 good idea. 10 MR. MARKS: That's feasible. 11 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: Huh? 12 MR. MARKS: That's certainly feasible. 13 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: That's the 14 problem. 15 CHAIRMAN HOLLOWAY: My opinion, my 16 opinion, I would rather you get an independent 17 company to do the inspections. 18 COMMISSIONER FITZGIBBONS: I don't 19 think an independent company -- you're prioritizing, 20 then. I don't believe in prioritization. I believe 21 you should -- if you have enough money to hire an 22 inspector to go out and do these inspections -- 23 COMMISSIONER MEHTA: Chairman, I think