Planning Board Public Meeting Minutes 20140902

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of September 2, 2014. For more detailed information, interested parties may request a CD recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.
Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Chairman Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Following members were present: Mayor Aronsohn, Ms. Bigos, Councilwoman Knudsen, Chairman Nalbantian, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Dockray, Ms. Peters, Mr. Thurston, and Ms. Altano. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq. and Katie Razin, Esq., Board Attorneys, Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer; and Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary. Mr. Joel and Mr. Abdalla were absent.
Chairman Nalbantian announced that the discussion regarding the resolution for the amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan for the H-Hospital zone was carried to September 16, 2014.
Chairman Nalbantian announced that this was Ms. Wondergem’s last meeting as Planning Board Secretary.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – There were no comments at this time.
Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics – Councilwoman Knudsen asked who was on the Master Plan Reexamination Committee and when meetings would be scheduled. Mr. Brancheau said he would want the committee to have copies of the 2006 Reexamination report and to familiarize the committee with what is already in the report and identify the problems that need to be addressed. Ms. Price said the steps for reexamination are outlined in the report that was distributed to the Board prior to this meeting. The Committee and the Board should look at the goals and objectives in the last reexamination report and determine if those goals and objectives have been achieved and what developments have occurred and create new goals and objectives moving forward.
Correspondence Received by the Board – Ms. Wondergem said there was none.
8:15 p.m. – Discussion re: Legal overview regarding Open Public Meetings Act requirements and Board obligations as per the Municipal Land Use Law – Ms. Price referred to a document which was distributed to the Board as a guide in light of the questions that have arisen over the last few months in terms of process, procedure, obligations and responsibility of the Board.
Ms. Price proceeded to go through the document by sections, beginning with the relevant definitions of the Municipal Land Use Law, such as ‘interested party’, ‘development’, ‘site plan’ and ‘subdivision’.
Ms. Price explained Board jurisdiction and the list of authorities and responsibilities of the Planning Board according to state statute. The Board has the authority to adopt the master plan, review and act on subdivision and site plan applications, to make recommendations on the zoning ordinance. The Board acts in an advisory capacity under the capital improvement program. Ms. Price explained that the Board has the ability to grant the two types of ‘C’ variances, the hardship ‘C’ variance, and the flexible ‘C’ variance.
Ms. Price reviewed the application process from when it is first submitted to the Board Secretary and reviewed for completeness by Mr. Brancheau according to the checklists. Board members asked Mr. Brancheau to clarify the completeness review process.
Board members had questions regarding the difference between an applicant and a proponent and the 45-day deadline for completeness review. Ms. Price said that ‘interested party’ is the correct term in regards to the individual or individuals filing a development application or a request for an amendment to the master plan. Ms. Price said that when a development application is filed the Board needs to meet the statutory time frame, the length of which depends on the type of development application. Ms. Price described the process regarding notice for an application to amend the master plan.
There was Board discussion regarding the process before the formal hearing to amend the master plan to permit multifamily housing began. The Board discussed subcommittee reports, professional reports, and draft amendments and when the process is paid for by the Village and when it is paid for through escrow accounts.
Ms. Price explained the notice process and Mr. Brancheau clarified when notice is required and who needs to be noticed. Ms. Price went through the hearing process, what becomes part of the record, witnesses, and the order of hearing. Board members asked for clarification regarding when an applicant is an LLC and Ms. Price explained the 10% disclosure requirement. Board members had questions regarding objectors who form a group and Ms. Razin explained that they need to disclose their membership and the difference between case law requirement and statutory requirement. There was Board discussion regarding this policy.
Ms. Price continued going through the document and reviewed Board practice in regards to how the Board needs to decide who is telling the truth and who is not. Ms. Price said that the Board should question experts and be sure that they are testifying in their area of expertise and that they did the research and are qualified.
Board members asked if it would be possible to know who the expert witnesses are ahead of the meeting. Ms. Price said the Board could consider amending the application form to require applicants to identify expert witnesses and their area of expertise.
Ms. Price explained the voting process and eligibility, the resolution, memorializing the resolution and the publication of the notice of the decision. Ms. Price said that the publication of the decision in the newspaper starts the 45-day period during which the Board could be sued.
There was Board discussion regarding site plan vs. master plan amendment. Board members had concerns about the site plans and renderings being presented during a hearing regarding a master plan amendment. Mr. Brancheau said that sometimes design standards relate to mitigating the visual impact of a large building. Ms. Price said that it is up to the Board members to sift through the material presented for what is relevant.
There was Board discussion regarding historic districts and the role of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Ms. Price explained that when an applicant gets preliminary approval from the Board, that approval is good for three years and they are protected from ordinance changes for those three years. Ms. Price explained site plan approval and when an applicant should come back to the Board for amended site plan approval.
Ms. Price explained when a Board can or cannot deny an application and when the Board can impose a pro rata contribution for valid offsite improvements which would be addressed in a developers agreement. Ms. Price explained when other agencies need to approve an application, such as the County Planning Board, DEP, DOT, etc.
Ms. Price explained the two types of ‘C’ variances and said that for both of them the Board needs to look at the positive and negative criteria and that the benefits must substantially outweigh the detriments for the community.
Ms. Price and Ms. Razin suggested that Board members read through paragraphs a thru p in Section 2 of the MLUL regarding the goals and purposes of zoning.
There was Board discussion regarding the minutes and the transition to the new Planning Board Secretary.
The Board had discussion regarding the September 16 meeting agenda and venue.
10:45 p.m. – Planner Report: Status update re: calendar/applications – Mr. Brancheau went over the status of the applications before the Board at this time including Church of God, Tito’s Burritos, Liva Eye Center, First Presbyterian Church and the United Methodist Church.
Mr. Brancheau reminded the Board that a resident asked the Board to consider an amendment to the master plan concerning the zoning on Goffle Road and that the Board should discuss this matter.
Mr. Brancheau said the Board needs to discuss how they want to approach the COAH deadline, possible litigation and the multifamily housing applications.
Mr. Brancheau said the Board drafted an ordinance last year regarding institutional uses which was defeated at Council and that he is recommending further changes to the ordinance and would like to put the revised draft on the agenda for Board review.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.

      Respectfully submitted,
      Jane Wondergem
      Board Secretary

Date approved: