MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

November 30, 2006

Chair Michael Lightner read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement Notice: Adequate notice of this meeting was given to the Citizen and the Daily Record, was posted with the Borough Clerk and on the Bulletin Board and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.

ROLL CALL:

Board Members Present: Nix, Dunn, Batty, Webb, Palmer, Lightner

Absent: Shaw, Pitcher, Melikian, Gormally, Selver

Also Present: Attorney Peter Henry

REVIEW OF MINUTES: The amended minutes of the October 26 meeting were approved by voice vote.

DISCUSSIONS:

Ordinance #27-06, dealing with Development Fees

Frank Dunn asked if the language had been reviewed with the planner, and is it changeable?

Referring to page 2, para. 5 (equalized assessed value), Dunn asked about the ratio. Peter Henry said that ratio was determined by the county, comparing the actual with the assessed value in each town. The process is defined in the State statute.

On para. 4b, Dunn questioned the 6%...of what? Henry said there was no harm in adding “of the value of the improvements”.

Gary Webb explained that conversations with the COAH staff revealed that you can use up to 20% of the balance for administrative fees. Webb said that this is written to the regulations, but based on COAH guidance, we can use 20%.

Henry said it is not clear to me…..30% of which revenues? That is addressed by inserting “remaining revenues”, then 1/3 of the availability assistance portions. Dunn said that the language is confusing and you can come up with different interpretations.

Gary Webb said that Borough Attorney Marty Murphy did not think this was a substantive change requiring another first reading. Peter Henry thought the revised version from Planner Susan Kimball is more clear; he distributed her revision.

Gary – Council’s goal is to be able to use 20% for administration, the balance to assure that we meet our third round plan.

Henry – COAH says that you shall use at least 30% for affordability assistance.

Joan Nix questioned the exemptions, the difference between improvements and additions. The Board agreed that para. 3a should read, “Improvements and additions made to….”

Joan Nix also questioned 4b; if additions in 3a are exempt what would this apply to: new dwellings, density? For example, 5 acres of property applying for 6 dwellings? Henry said this is more dwelling units per parcel of land than the ordinance permits; it probably wouldn’t happen with construction of a single house.

Joan Nix made the motion to recommend the revised ordinance to Council, seconded by Sandy Batty, and carried by 6-0 roll call vote.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: none

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Sandy Batty attended the Highlands Council today and reported that they voted for the release of the draft Regional Master Plan. The plan is on the Internet at Highlands.state.njus. They have established three zones: Conservation Zone (agricultural that needs protection), Protection Zone (areas that are environmentally sensitive, with the most strict protection) and Planned Community Zones. Mountain Lakes is almost exclusively in the Planned Community Zone. A small portion is in the Protection Zone (eg. Wilcox Park, The Tourne.)

There will be a series of six hearings, beginning January 9 at Frelingheusen, followed by adoption of the Plan. There will be a period (6 to 15 months) during which the towns impacted have to come into conformance with the Plan. Batty recommended formation of a committee to look at the Highlands Plan in relationship to Mountain Lakes to see if we want to make comments.

OTHER MATTERS / PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Model Growth Share Provisions for an Affordable Housing Ordinance - Mike Lightner noted that we just received this document, it may be premature to comment on it at this time. Gary said there will be a meeting regarding this on December 19. Council may look at this for larger sites but there will be much discussion in the future. Peter Henry – this is a model ordinance, it may be considered the flip side of the development fee ordinance; these are two different approaches. Mike Lightner said that if any individual members want to make suggestions, they should send comments to the Council. This will be considered again in the future. Barbara Palmer noted that receipt of this document in today’s Email was not enough time to review it this evening. Mike Lightner said this is considered only for informational purposes;

this is a model ordinance, no action is necessary.

Joan Nix reported that the HPC has engaged a Preservation Planner to recommend if and what pieces of our Master Plan and ordinance should be modified. Lightner said he believes the process should begin with creation of an ordinance to implement the changes. If the Master Plan should be amended, that would be initiated with the Planning Board. Peter Henry noted that Council does not have an official role with the Master Plan.

The Board agreed that unless there is an application on record by Monday, we will not have a meeting December 14.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Marge Jackson, Secretary