Municipal Building, Harmony, NJ Harmony Township Land Use Board

Regular Meeting June 6, 2018 - 6:00 p.m.

Meeting Notice The Regular meeting of the Harmony Township Land Use Board was

called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Tipton. Mr. Tipton read the Open Public Meetings statement at this time. Mr. Tipton stated that “Adequate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act by publishing a notice of the meeting in the Star Gazette and Express- Times newspapers and by posting a copy on the Township Bulletin Board and filing a copy thereof with the Township Clerk”.

Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Tipton. Roll Call Present at the meeting were Members Tipton, J. Rossi, Cornely, Beers,

Hausamann, D. Rossi, P. Ward. Also in attendance were Secretary Kelley Smith, Alternate Secretary Courtney Morrow, Engineer Stanley Schrek and Substitute Attorney John Caleca.

Order of Business Minutes

Motion by Beers, seconded by Ward and carried unanimously by all in favor to approve the minutes of April 4, 2018. Resolutions Motion by Ward, seconded by Beers to approve resolution memorializing Case 18-8; Alpha Pet Resort. Roll Call: Ayes: Beers, Hausamann, Ward. Nays: None.

Discussion Accessory Building Height

Mr. Tipton updated the Board on the building height restriction ordinance and the potential need for revision to stop so many height variances. It is in respect to accessory buildings, i.e. garages, sheds. It now says it shall not exceed 15’ in height at the peak and 10’ walls. It was discussed at the Township Committee meeting on 6/5 and he has spoken with the Zoning Office and some Board members about it. Mr. Rossi has made a recommendation that a reasonable height would be 25’ at the peak and 20’ sides before a variance is required. Mr. Tipton said that the appropriate setbacks would still be required. There were no comments from the Board or its’s professionals on this recommendation. Motion by Tipton, seconded by Ward to refer back to the Township Committee an amendment to Ordinance 165-23 to change the height restriction for an accessory building to 25’ at the peak and 20’ for the side bearing walls. Roll Call: Ayes: Tipton, J. Rossi, Cornely, Beers, Hausamann, D. Rossi, P. Ward. Piggeries Mr. Tipton discussed Chapter 78; Dogs and other animals, Article II Piggeries; this was raised by the Zoning Officer Joe Rossi at the May Land Use Board Meeting and it was carried for further discussion. He indicated that there are various provision and sections under this section of the Ordinance regarding the right to raise pigs. It generally delineates between having up to 15 or more than 15 pigs. In situations where you have more you have to have a license and then there are rules with the license. He thinks if the licensure and fees are eliminated and the

numbers and just say you can raise pigs if you have a farm it would make more sense but you still include the fencing requirements, building structures, concrete slabs, and the cleanliness requirements including nuisance and smell. If you remove the distinction of how many you can have, but you have to have a farm to have them, would eliminate them being in residential zones. Mr. Rossi agreed to that idea. Mr. Tipton asked if there were any thoughts or concerns about restricting the pig raising only to farmers as opposed to the average resident. He said not the pet pigs that are kept indoors. He said if that sounds reasonable to everyone he will mark up the ordinance and he will present it back to the board for a vote of recommendation at the July meeting. Mr. Beers asked if he had 20 acres and wanted to raise 15 pigs but he is not a farmer. Discussion ensued that a minimum for a “farm” is 5 acres. Mr. Rossi said he thinks only domestic animals should be in residential area, in that scenario, he would ask him to come before the board and get a variance. Mr. Beers stated then if he was listed as a farm then it would be ok? And Mr. Rossi said yes. Mr. Tipton said would they want to make an exception to residential areas that have an excess of a certain amount of acreage. Mr. Beers said that would be more reasonable. Mr. Tipton asked what that acreage should be and what would the limit of pigs be? Mr. Tipton said he doesn’t have an objection to having an exception that permits a residential owner that has 20 or more acres. He wouldn’t want it to be too small because there are quite a few parcels in the Township that have acreage above 5 that could be pretty close to a neighbor. Mr. Rossi stated one thing to consider is to start with a minimum of 5 acres for 1 pig and 1 pig for every acre after that, i.e., 7 acres equal 3 pigs. Or a pig for every 5 acres. Mr. Tiptons’ concern is the smell factor. He feels 20 acres is large enough to maintain the potential problems with any neighbors. Mr. Rossi agreed. Mr. Tipton said he would build something into it that provides the exception and the Board should think about the size of the acreage and the number of pigs. Abandoned Vehicles Mr. Tipton said the issue here is the maximum amount of unregistered and or abandoned vehicles that a residence could have. It currently states 2 are allowed on residential private property. Mr. Rossi stated he recommended that the location should be on the side or rear of the property. Mr. Tipton asked if there was any comments by the Board on this issue. Mr. Cornely recommended it be left at 2 and have it in the back or on the side yard as opposed to allowing it be in the front yard. Mr. Ward asked if it would make sense to add verbiage along the line of “in plain sight”, i.e., if you had someone that was a collector and had a shed or a structure and the vehicles were concealed even though they are not on the road, they are being restored or something like that, they are not penalized. He thinks the issue is having them out in plain sight. Mr. Tipton agreed that it should read two that are visible. He asked if they want to restrict where they can be on the side, i.e., stay within setbacks, etc. It was the consensus of the Board to include that they stay within setbacks. Mr. Tipton will revise to read that 2 can stay in plain sight, must be inside the setbacks for structures on that property. He will mark up for next meeting. LMR Case #18-2 Mr. Tipton and Secretary Kelley Smith stepped down at this time due to conflicts. Mr. Cornely resumed as Chairman and Courtney Morrow resumed as Secretary.

Attorney Don Souders was present representing LMR and Rob Contrelle who is the owner of LMR and Engineer Nevitt Duveneck were present on behalf of this application. Mr. Souders stated they are here for site plan review and approval. He noted that all notification was made and provided to the Board Secretary. He indicated they will deal with completeness issues that Mr. Schrek raised in his review letter dated June 4 and his technical review. Mr. Souders advised the Board at this time the proposal for this site, since at the last meeting there was some confusion as to why they were before the Board, the proposed site is going to be the entirety of the LMR Disposal operations including the solid waste disposal operations, to the extent that there will be trucks and associated vehicles and the storage of empty and clean disposal containers on site. He stated it is not a transfer station or a facility where garbage is sorted. The trucks go out in the morning empty, collect garbage, go to a landfill and come back empty every night. There is a recycling component to it also. It is all of LMR operations not just limited to recycling. Mr. Souders said there are a number of disposal receptacles, large ones 5, 10 30 yard containers. Some of them will be stored on site but hopefully most of them will be out with customers. Mr. Souders indicated there will not be any type of Class B recycling operations permitted. No grinding, no rendering or loud noises. The recycling will be contained to a single building and it is single stream recycling. 3 or 4 small recycling trucks are consolidated into 1 big truck and it gets sent out the next day. Mr. Souders asked Mr. Contrelle to explain to the Board his association with LMR Disposal. Mr. Contrelle stated he is the owner and president of LMR Disposal and have owned the company for 8.5 years and he started the company. He indicated the business was started by doing junk removal and clean outs of homes. Because of the down turn of the housing market he decided he needed to get into something more regular and steady so he ventured into the disposal portion of the business and he got a lot of his customers from knocking on peoples doors and displaying his business which is different than his competitors. Mr. Contrelle stated the company grew over the last 8.5 years and now they have 35 employees with 30 trucks on the road. He wants to make Harmony his home and have it where he has a future for his employees and his business. Mr. Souders asked how many trucks and the types of trucks he uses in his business in all aspects of his business. Mr. Contrelle stated they have 30 trucks and run about 23 a day. There are 6 roll off trucks that deliver the dumpsters and about 16-17 packer trucks for picking up commercial businesses and homes. They provide trash and recycling services. If approved they would have at least 30 trucks parked there. Engineer Duveneck stated that there is room for a total of 50 spaces. Mr. Contrelle would like permission to have 50 trucks there. Mr. Duveneck stated that as the site plan is being presented LMR is not using the whole site at once. They are growing into it and would like approval to grow. Mr. Duveneck stated that what was provided was planning for the future for office and buildings and the area for trucks and storage of totes and containers. Mr. Souders asked Mr. Contrelle of the 30 existing trucks are dedicated to single stream component of the business. He stated about 12 out of the 30 because what they do is when they send out a trash truck they send out a recycling truck out because the recycling is done every week. Mr. Souders asked if they grew from 30 trucks to 50 trucks what the ratio would be between the compactors and the recycling. Mr. Contrelle state 1 for 1 growth. Compactor trucks are used

for both trash and recycling pick up. They are moving towards putting 1 man in the truck. Mr. Contrelle detailed the “tote”. A tote is what the garbage and recycling are placed in. Either a 65 or 95 gallon. Some are 35 gallon. When totes are returned they are cleaned and put back out or new ones are bought. Totes will be refurbished as needed on site. There will be an average of 1000 on site at any given time. They are nested into each other. The site plan indicates a tote storage area. Mr. Contrelle stated that there will be between 2 and 8 yard “containers”. He likes to have 10 of each on hand for new customers. There could be 60 containers on site. “Dumpsters” are 10 and 40 yard dumpsters. They are temporary. Regular containers are contractual on customer sites. Mr. Contrelle stated he has close to 300 dumpsters but some are at customers. Typically they store between 40-50 dumpsters on the property in the winter time. Most of the time they are out at customers. That storage area is depicted on the site plan. Mr. Contrelle stated he has 35 employees that work 1 shift. The drivers start about 3:45 a.m. and typically end around 2:30-3:00 p.m. Mr. Contrelle said the landfills close so they are back then. He has 24 drivers at this time. The other employees consist of helpers (throwers) mechanics, welder. The helpers go out on the trucks. The rear load trucks have a driver and a helper. They work the same time as the drivers. Only the commercial trucks go out at 3:45 a.m. and the other trucks leave around 5:15 a.m. Excluding the drivers/helpers the mechanics work from 5 a.m. – 3 p.m and 9 a.m. – 7 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday hours are limited. The mechanics come in to maintenance the trucks on Saturdays. Mr. Contrelle stated if a holiday is on a Monday all operations will run on Saturday. Mr. Contrelle stated there are not compactor trucks doing pick up on Saturdays. There is some recycling routes on Saturday. He cannot make it sometimes to the outlets on Friday to dump the recycling so that is one reason he would like to put in the recycling center to bring in 3 or 4 employees to dump the trucks there so they are ready to go out Monday. He stated he either hauls to New Brunswick, Northampton, or Hamburg. Mr. Souders reviewed when trucks go out on a route, the same route is essentially covered by 2 trucks. One being the garbage and one the recycling truck. The idea is to come in with the recycling and consolidate that from the smaller volume of recycling from the trucks that do the collection, put it in a larger truck and take out a single load on a Saturday to Pa. Mr. Contrelle said it does not make sense to send a ½ loaded truck and hour and a half each way. Mr. Souders stated on the recycling side of things there is a specific building on the site plan shown as the recycling shed. It will be a 60’x74’ building. The trucks come in with single stream recycling that includes plastic bottles, cans, cardboard and newspaper. It is not separated when collected. It will come into the 60’x74’ open shed that will be built as an a-frame wooden structure. The trucks come in and empty into this structure until enough is there to get loaded into a larger truck and taken out hopefully during the week. There will not be any separating of material, grinding or crushing of glass. Mr. Contrelle stated there will not be any Class B recycling operation on site. In the event if he wanted to do that he would have to come back to the board. Mr. Souders addressed another proposed building on the site plan marked as future open front 50’ x 100’ equipment shed for pole barn construction will be used as extra storage. Similar to the recycling building. There is an existing 2-story brick garage being used for maintenance and truck repair. There are not any offices in that structure. Mr. Contrelle said there are 3 mechanics and a helper that work in the brick building. There is not proposal for any improvement to that building. There is a proposed 24’ x 76’ temporary office building that is on site now that is to be removed and replaced with a 10’ x 40’ foot. A

truck scale 74’ x 24’ is proposed on the site. The trucks will pull on and they get weighed. The scale is only for the recycling trucks. There is a proposed 50’ x 50’ office building. Now the office staff is in Alpha and this would be built so his office staff would come to Harmony. Mr. Souders asked about the existing 35 employees if Alpha office workers were included and Mr. Contrelle stated they were. There are 6 office employees. Mr. Souders reviewed the parking areas for the Board that are shown on the site plan. The compactor trucks are about 7.5’ x 35’. The container trucks are about the same. The existing driveway will be used for trucks and employees. Mr. Ward asked about the concrete wash down area. Mr. Contrelle stated that is just a truck wash-down area and there will not be any type of concrete recycling. The applicants engineer Nevitt Duveneck stated there is no bulk variance being requested. Mr. Souders stated some waivers on completeness and design stuff but there are no C Variances as far as they are aware of. Township Engineer Stan Schrek wanted to have a conversation on what the zoning is on this application. Mr. Schrek said they gave a good introduction but usually we get into the completeness prior to but he thinks is good for the Board is able to catch up on this and he just wants on the record and it will have to be on the resolution how we got to what they are proposing now. The initial application the Board was given a plan than had a very minor use of the site. It was a one building for the recycling industry and the Board made an interpretation as to whether that is permitted in the zone. The zoning ordinance does allow for recycling centers but it doesn’t place it anywhere, that conversation is not shown in any of the zones so the Board made an interpretation that this would be allowed. During the testimony it came out that there are some other things happening on the site and the applicant was asked to go back and their Engineer did put all the operations that Mr. Contrelle went through under Dons direction and explained what they are, however, those operations don’t appear in the zoning ordinance either but Joe (Rossi) was able to give a permit to allow that work so there is a zoning permit to have the operations specified. Mr. Schrek stated he was confused as to what the principal use is on the site and he thinks that has to be defined and how the Board is moving forward and allowing that principal use. Mr. Rossi stated he wanted to correct Mr. Schrek on one thing. He stated he gave a permit so Mr. Contrelle could park his vehicles on the site and other equipment. Mr. Contrelle stated that it says clearly that maintenance of vehicles, dumpster. Mr. Rossi stated back no problem to maintenance. Mr. Contrelle said that is what they are doing and Mr. Rossi stated he disagreed with that statement. Mr. Souders asked to be read into the record what is clearly stated in the zoning permit that Mr. Rossi issued. Mr. Schrek stated he thinks what has to be on the record for the resolution so the resolution can clearly state what is allowed on the site. Mr. Souders stated he understood. Mr. Schrek stated he wants the record clear. This developed and if you look at his June 4th report he lists every item that he believes is part of this application and it does include what we are going to read now. Mr. Souders indicated that when the application was made to Mr. Rossi which resulted in him approving it and signing it as an approved permit on December 14, 2017, Mr. Contrelle handled that directly with Mr. Rossi, and the purpose of application and proposed use was “parking of compactor trucks, dumpsters, roll off trucks and the ability to perform maintenance pertaining to the refuse industry”. Mr. Souders said essentially that is what Mr. Contrelle has testified to. Mr. Rossi asked Mr. Souders what he considers to be parking on site. Mr. Souders parking on site is exactly what is occurring now and part of what Rob proposes to do. His drivers are going to come in as a use attendant to his disposal business and they are going to park empty

garbage trucks on the site on an overnite basis and his employees are going to come in the next morning to the parked vehicles, get in them, drive off site in an empty status, pick up garbage and drop it off at the landfill and come home empty and park them again at night. Mr. Rossi said this may have been one time, and this is why he is bringing it up, he was there at 10:30 in the morning and a roll off with an empty bin was going out and he asked why that happened. Mr. Souders stated that is part of his business. Mr. Rossi stated then he is running a business. Mr. Souders stated he doesn’t think there was anything misleading that was ever intended to suggest that the LMR operation, there was confusion on his part about the recycling part of it in the backdrop of the zoning permit having been issued but he thinks Rob made it clear with Mr. Rossi and they have ultimately at the meeting and everything that has happened since made it clear that LMR disposal hopefully intends to be a good corporate citizen in Harmony Township and operate its’ disposal company from the site. Mr. Souders speaking to Mr. Rossi stated that before he saw that truck at 10:30 a.m. leaving in a moving state it was parked on the site. Mr. Contrelle speaking to Mr. Rossi said he spoke to him on the phone and he didn’t see anything wrong with the operation they are having there. Mr. Rossi said that was when he was out there and that is why he is bringing it up now. Mr. Contrelle said to Mr. Rossi he spoke to him on the phone and Mr. Rossi said he didn’t see anything that you are doing that is a problem. Then a letter was received that stated kind of the contrary. He continued to say he is not running his operation out of there because his office is still in Alpha. All he is doing is parking trucks there, its’ a place that guys show up, they park their car, they jump in his trucks and they go out and perform a duty to the citizens of Warren and Hunterdon County. Mr. Rossi indicated that is why he is bringing it up and he wanted it clarified. He was curious about that one point. Mr. Souders said he thinks when he renoticed he made, he knows in his mind he intended to make a significant effort to be very expansive while being detailed what the notice indicated what Rob was going to do on site. He knows there was confusion at the last meeting with respect to just recycling center, that is actually a misnomer in his view, because what he is doing is coming in with the single stream recycling materials, consolidating them into one and either that day or on a Saturday they are going off site with the single stream material which as an aside he thinks there are recycling credits that benefit the Township. Mr. Contrelle said the Township would get benefits from recycling grants. Mr. Souders said there is no recycling, sorting, processing, grinding or anything that would be perceived as a nuisance or create any odors, noise, dust or any kind of air pollution on site. Mr. Contrelle stated in the trash business and with the landfills in the area he has about 8 different locations where he can drop trash and it is never an issue to get rid of the trash. For the recycling there are 3 places within 75 miles so if a small truck goes out and you pick up the recycling and you don’t have enough room to get the next day in you have to drive 75 miles to get rid of the recycling and on top of it recycling is getting charged 75$/ton to get rid of recycling because China is not taking it any more so pretty soon if there is not an opportunity to get rid of the recycling the recycling is going all go in the trash. Mr. Souders affirmed with Mr. Contrelle that the type of trash he collects is only residential and commercial, no hospital or classified as hazardous or toxic. No incineration or disposal of anything else that he collects will be on site. Mr. Contrelle indicated 95% of the trash he picks up on a daily basis is what you consume at your house, i.e. shingles from a roof or the food waste created on a daily basis. Mr. Souders stated he tried to get out from Robs’ testimony exactly what is going to hopefully happen on site. He asked Mr. Contrelle if there was anything he didn’t

ask him about or anything he would want the boards permission to do on site or was everything covered. Mr. Contrelle indicated that everything was covered. Mr. Souders stated and Mr. Contrelle agreed that this site is the entirety of the business, single stream recycling, sorting, parking of empty compactor trucks at night. Mr. Contrelle specified “essentially right now they are running their business out of this location since April 1st minus having the office staff there and the recycling center there”. Mr. Souders said it is there view by virtue of the application and the permit issued by Mr. Rossi on the entirely of the operation, the waste operation and the trucks themselves that engage in it, there is a permit permitting the use in the zone and that they came in on a subcomponent of that, recycling, at the last meeting and received a favorable interpretation from the Board on that issue and that is their position on the issue that has been raised and discussed at the last meeting and quite a bit since between the professionals. Mr. Souders does not think that use is an issue as they sit there tonight, he does not think that there are two separate and distinct uses on site, he thinks there is a disposal company on site conducting business in the fashion permitted by statute and permit and consistent with what the zoning application permits. Mr. Cornely opened the meeting up for questions by the Board at this time. Ms. Rossi asked if they have a truck going to the landfill, and it malfunctions or breaksdown, will they bring it back to Harmony to repair it because that is where the mechanics are. Mr. Contrelle stated that is correct. Ms. Rossi asked if it could be a fully loaded truck with garbage. Mr. Contrelle stated it could be. Ms. Rossi concluded from his statement that trucks could end up back there full of garbage. Mr. Contrelle said ultimately he doesn’t make money by storing trash in trucks and he needs his trucks to make money and complete routes. He stated his trucks are emptied on a daily basis. Ms. Rossi reconfirmed with Mr. Contrelle that there could be a truck returning with trash in it and he said there very well could be and he state he is sure that Mr. Smith of Sanico brings trucks back with trash in it too for that reason. Mr. Souders asked Mr. Contrelle what has been occurring on the issue of trash, spillage, policing the property, policing the egress/ingress on the County Road, or what efforts have they made on keeping the road clean. Mr. Contrelle said he had his workers clean up the sides of the road when they moved in because he didn’t want anyone to blame him for the trash that was already there and it is his intention to continue that practice. Mr. Souders asked what the speed limit was on the road and Mr. Contrelle state it is 40 MPH and stated he has given his drivers a notification/documentation where they punch in that there is no exceeding 30 MPH on that road. Mr. Ward asked why if he intended to run the entire business from the site from the beginning the original proposal didn’t include all the office buildings and the trailer that appears is already on the site from when the Board is seeing now. Mr. Contrelle said he knew he was going to have to go for a site plan. Mr.Ward asked why wouldn’t you put that in the proposal in the very beginning instead of just for the shed for the transfer of the recycling and the storage of the trucks. There was no mention of an office and running the entire business out of the site. Mr. Shrek stated that it wasn’t for the storage of the trucks that the original application was for a recycling center and now the current application is for a Class A single stream recycling center and truck maintenance facility. Mr. Shrek

spelled out that is his point, that the Board mad the interpretation based on the recycling center the applicant is maintaining he has a zoning permit for the operations that are there now he thinks in his opinion as an Engineer not an Attorney, that the Board should revisit the interpretation that was originally done months ago to permit the uses as shown. Mr. Souders wanted to further answer Mr. Wards question at this time. He indicated he was looking at the original plan that they appeared initially on and the date of the plan was April 23, 2018, if you look at that plan as compared to the plan tonight, there’s more intense activity including the B Recycling on that plan as is depicted on tonight’s plan. Mr. Schrek stated negative to Mr. Souders comment and said that that was the one that was withdrawn. Mr. Souders questioned “that we withdrew”? Mr. Schrek indicated there were 3 plans floating around. Mr. Souders claimed he has one site plan in his file from the original meeting he appeared at. Mr. Ward indicated he has both of the plans that he is referring to but what they received as the Land Use Board and their most recent submission. The original they received has the shed on it and a small parking area to the left and there is no mention of dumpster or tote storage, no large parking area in the back and no trailer office being added so the original one that he has is the one that the interpretation was made on. His point is if this now is what was intended why didn’t they receive that in the beginning instead of getting the whole picture upfront before they made the decision as to what they were going to permit. Mr. Ward remembers specific conversations about recycling and the storage/shed for the transfer but he doesn’t remember discussions about running the entire business out of this site. Mr. Contrelle stated because he is not an engineer or an attorney and ultimately he is learning as they go, essentially he had the approval from Mr. Rossi to park the equipment there and he hired an engineer and an attorney that he pays a good amount of money to and he’s only been in business 8.5 years and this is his first big purchase of his life and he doesn’t necessarily know how these land use boards go but he is finding out that if you want it it better be on the paper, and further stated quite frankly Mr. Ward that was just him being naïve, because if you remember correctly we were going back and forth about the recycling center and then he said that he already had the approval to park the trucks and if you remember correctly Mr. Schrek and Kelley got the paperwork that Mr. Rossi had signed off on and he had signed off on. He said he’s not trying to pull anything over on anyone here. Mr. Schrek stated that was all discovery at the last meeting and that was why it was stopped and brought back to the board. Mr. Contrelle said he’s not going to spend they type of money on that property just for recycling because if he had to do that he would find another means. Mr. Cornely asked what they had to do now. Should it be revisited. Mr. Schrek indicated that they took a vote to interpret that ... Mr. Souders interrupted Mr. Schreks’ sentence (as he was asking him to standby) by stating the recycling activities on site were permitted in the light industrial zone and the additional plan details that have been added, correctly so, to more accurately depict a couple future structures in no way relate to the recycling, the testimony on the recycling operation tonight he thinks replicates in its entirety and if not more accurately states the limitations from an intensity standpoint the limited recycling operation meaning it’s a consolidation of 3 or 4 trucks of single stream recycling into larger trucks in that zone on this site in the proposed building has been proposed since day one. It’s not like there is a different type or more intensive or broad type of recycling center, recycling center is not a proper term in his view, it suggests that it’s going to be open to

the public. It is not going to be open to the public just for the internal operations of LMR Disposal. Will not be for retail or drop off by the public. Mr. Souders continued by stating he doesn’t think the testimony of the recycling component to the disposal is any way different or the plan, even though there are some changes and additional details that Mr. Schrek directed Nevitt to add to the plan, does it in anyway impact the Boards’ prior interpretation on the recycling. There is nothing different being proposed relative to the recycling component tonight than the initial meeting. Mr. Schrek stated they are storing compactors that are not recycling they are garbage disposal vehicles. Mr. Souders said from Robs, the applicants, perspective he always had approval from a use stand point, subject to site plan. Mr. Schrek read from his report what he had wrote on zoning which stated: Existing Block 4, Lot 3.01 is located within the I-1 industrial zone; industrial, light industrial, business offices, warehouses and distribution centers are permitted primary uses in the I-1 industrial zone. The ordinance does not specifically address recycling centers/establishments as permitted use within the I-1 Zone. Industrial, light industrial is defined by ordinance as “manufacture, processing or assembly of materials into a finished product for the storage/warehousing and or distribution of bulk goods and materials whether related to or not to the foregoing uses”. Definitions further define recycling establishments, however, that use is clearly not listed as a permitted use in the I-1 zone. Mr. Schrek further states that was mentioned at the last meeting it is specifically not mentioned anywhere but its’ in the ordinance and it should drop into someplace and the Board made an interpretation on that so he said the Board may interpret if such a use is permitted. It is noted that the applicant did not apply for a D variance relief (use variance) if it is determined a D variance is required then the application be deemed incomplete at this time. The Board at the previous meeting granted the interpretation in favor of the use, for the recycling that was on the plan they had. The present application far exceeds what was submitted in the previous application so interpretation should be revisited. Mr. Cornely stated at this point he asked the members of the Board if they are willing to accept the interpretation as having been revisiting they can move forward and see whether or not there is a complete application. Mr. Schrek stated that is an appropriate motion. Beers made a second. Roll Call: Ayes: Beers, Cornely, Hausamann, D. Rossi, P. Ward. Abstain: J. Rossi Nays: None. Mr. Souders asked Nevitt Duveneck to review the site plan for the Board at this time. It was marked as A-1. Mr. Duveneck stated the plan was dated 5/16/18. Revised sheets 1-4. Sheet 3 was reviewed at this time. Mr. Duveneck described the entrance to the property. It is an existing driveway off of Roxburg Station Road. Improvements were made for the prior application by Anchor Block and approved through the County. The existing building is within setback, just barely, at 100 ft. set back. There was an additional right of way granted to Anchor Block and it increased the right of way along Roxburg Station Road. The existing building and masonry block was depicted on the plan. At this point in time there are still large piles of masonry block that were left on site. They are being moved out over time. Mr. Duveneck indicated where they were still piled up on site. He indicated there was a temporary trailer on site now for the drivers when they punch in and punch out. He indicated where the trucks were parked and

showed where the personal vehicles were parked. An area that will be developed with a guiderail through the middle and lighting. It will allow trucks to point in from both sides and set up with electricity so heaters can be on the trucks in the winter. To accommodate the future facility along with the proposed 60’ x 74’ open shed for recycling materials, also proposed is an open shed for equipment. In the back corners is where the tote and dumpster storage areas are on both side of the property. There are large berms with mature growth on them in front of the property. He showed half of the frontage on Roxburg Station Road. He indicated there is another 10 acre parcel on the side which the owner is retaining and he showed along south foul rift road the area of berms. He indicated you cannot see inside of the site except inside the driveway area. The berms contain stormwater on site so it stays within the berms and flows down into the basin off of south foul rift road adjacent to the Stateline Fabricators site. Proposed is an office building and help. Original site plan had conceptual parking shown. The area is already stone. Proposed is a concrete wash down area pad that will slope to the center that will have an inlet that will go to a proposed 1000 gallon tank which will be pumped out regularly so trucks can be washed down and capture the water from the trucks. The employee parking is around the perimeter. Additional parking is being proposed for the eventual employee count they will have. There is site lighting that was designed by a lighting manufacture and will be put in and light areas that will be on during times of operation. There will be security lighting left on. Mr. Souders asked Engineer Duveneck to depict the other 10 acres on the side of the property. Mr. Duveneck showed the 10 acre parcel that is not part of the application. It is currently a farm field. He described the layout of the parcels and indicated that the approved subdivision is now being perfected. Mr. Duveneck stated that the Roxburg Station Road is a County road and precipitates an application with the Warren County Planning Board. Comments have been received but they have not resubmitted to them yet. Mr. Souders asked what the requirements which has jurisdiction of the road. Mr. Duveneck stated a traffic study will be required. Mr. Souders asked the Board if anyone had any questions for Nevitt. Board Member Hausamann clarified by asking when they wash down the trucks that the water goes into a collection tank. She asked where how that water is taken care of. Mr. Contrelle stated they call a septic company and they treat it like sewage. Mr. Souders started reviewing Mr. Schreks’ report at this time. Mr. Duveneck submitted today the detailed 6 page response. Mr. Duveneck went through the items in Mr. Schreks’ report and his reply are as follows: #1, 2, 3 Development staging: Mr. Contrelle testified as far as the recycling center that would be his top priority once he takes over ownership of the property or in a formal lease via Stateline Fabricators. Then lighting of the parking areas. Try to streamline the business and get his office up here as quickly as possible. That would be 1, 2, and 3. The single stream recycling building would be #1 on the list. The equipment building is a “nice to have” not a need to have. That is at the bottom of the list. He foresees the office building done within one year. Mr. Souders stated that proof of taxes paid was provided. As to the disclosure of ownership comment, Mr. Contrelle states he has 100% ownership of LMR Disposal. #4 will be revised and added. Landscaping areas they agree to revise the plan and just show the limits of the earthen berm in a bulk area along the frontages of Roxburg Station and Foul Rift Road.

Existing utility poles they requested they be granted a waiver from showing the pole size and type. Mr. Duveneck stated he didn’t know how the Board wanted to handle the items requesting waivers for. Mr. Schrek stated it is language out of the ordinance, all poles and types. Mr. Duveneck asked if they should just reference the ones they are requesting waivers for by number. Mr. Schrek said yes unless they are more specific. Mr. Duveneck stated there was a waiver requested for #6. #9 Number of traffic and trips analysis. Mr. Duveneck stated that the County has requested this and will be required for site plan approval. Asking for a temporary waiver for completeness only. Mr. Souders said to Mr. Schrek his concern on that is there is a potentiality there could be conflicts in what the County ultimately recommends or requires as a result of the study as compared to your potential review. Mr. Schrek stated County approval would be a condition of this approval. Mr. Souders understood. Mr. Schrek said the Township Board will be provided the information that the County requests. Mr. Duveneck and Souders agreed. It is a temporary waiver for completeness only. Plan and profiles of streets adjoining property – requested waiver. Individual sewage disposal report – request waiver. There is an existing septic on site and it should be protected by bollards as recommended by Mr. Schrek. Water supply report – There is a well on site. Mr. Duveneck said it is being used. Mr. Contrelle stated it is just a potable water supply. Mr. Ward stated the building does not have sprinklers. He stated the use of the building is changing so if there is going to be mechanical work being done in the building and there is a higher risk for fire, he will have to go to the fire code official to get approval for that. Mr. Contrelle acknowledged this request. Mr. Schrek stated this may be an issue regarding the water supply. This will be a temporary waiver until that is addressed by the building department. Development stages and schedule – no waiver required. 200’ owners list – is on the plans. Environmental Impact Analysis – requested a waiver from this item. Mr. Schrek stated this is an existing site and has been a developed site. He does not think you will get much information regarding species or native species that is effected by whatever the use is. They are going to have to comply with any performance standards per the Townships ordinance. He does not have an issue waiving the environmental impact statement and also the Community Facilities Report. Mr. Duveneck asked what is the Community Facilities Report. Mr. Schrek indicated it’s how many kids they would be putting in school, the demand for fire equipment, etc. Large developments would require more information on that. Final Site Plan Check List, Title Block Information, Owners and Address – will be added.

Owners and other parties and interests and consent to submission – has been discussed. An owners authorization has been submitted and will provide on plan if needed. Name of all adjoining owners – on the plan. Accurate Boundary Survey – Mr. Duveneck indicated Sheet 2 is a boundary survey. Mr. Schrek stated he hasn’t checked the closure of it. There is a statement saying that it closed within one part in 10,000 and he is requesting a temporary waiver until they review that. Mr. Duveneck stated they are asking for a waiver for #20. #21-Existing proposed principal buildings and structures for grade elevations, floors, roofs – request a waiver. Mr. Schrek asked the Board if they were concerned about what the buildings are going to look like? Floor plans? Mr. Cornely stated he thinks they would. Mr. Schrek stated if the testimony is adequate as to what they would look like they should be granted the waiver. There were no comments. Architectural floor plans – same as #21. #23 – Existing Topography. Mr. Duveneck testified it is a fully developed site and there is no mass excavation. Mr. Schrek stated they gave adequate testimony. Landscape and Planting Plan – Mr. Duveneck requested a waiver. He stated this is an industrial site. It is a place you are going to see, he guess they could beautify the site but they are trying to keep the drainage consistent to what it is today and without planting islands or anything in that nature it would be difficult to landscape this site and it’s industrial in nature so they are requesting a waiver. Mr. Rossi objected to this waiver. He stated that building inspectors, zoning officers, garbage guys are necessary evils, and he said he has the utmost respect for Mr. Contrelle. He thinks this is a fault on the Township that one business comes in, leaves, another comes in and we don’t know of it. He testified there is a lot of stuff on the site. He would like a timeframe where LMR proposes to move all the rubbish, the tires, the trailers. Mr. Duveneck had stated they plan to move everything out of there and he would like it moved out before they do any construction. Mr. Duveneck stated it has to be moved out before any construction takes place because there is no area to utilize and develop the site the way it is without moving all the stuff. Mr. Contrelle stated that most of that block is on the 10 acres that he is going to be purchasing. Mr. Rossi asked if all the block is going to be removed and Mr. Contrelle stated that is the goal. Mr. Rossi addressed the rims on site. Mr. Contrelle said the rims and tires, everything, is going to be stored inside of the building. Mr. Schrek asked Mr. Rossi based on cleaning of the site and the testimony given for the berms around the property lines you would consider that proper landscaping for the site and Mr. Rossi stated yes. Location of sanitary sewer lines – no sanitary sewer on site. It is a septic. Requested a waiver and Mr. Schrek agreed. Utility lines and will serve letters- site is served by electric and has a septic. Mr. Duveneck stated it is fully served by all utilities. Mr. Schrek confirmed with Mr. Duveneck that there is no increased demand.

Location of all fire prevention measures including emergency lights, hydrants, sprinklers and connections and a fire zone – requested a waiver. Mr. Ward stated that they need to check the use of the building matches the way the building is set up for fire prevention. Fire extinguishment as well as marking out fire lanes, access to the different buildings, truck areas and make sure they are designated as areas that you cannot park vehicles there. The applicant acknowledged this. Engineer Duveneck asked for a temporary waiver for completeness only with the understanding that that will have to be added to the plans in the future. Mr. Schrek agreed. Construction details of all site improvements – Mr. Duveneck requested a grant of a waiver for that. He indicated the site is developed as discussed before with stone throughout other than things of development like the concrete wash down area and the proposed buildings it will hold up the equipment they have there today. They will provide lighting details or anything else that has to do with construction. Mr. Schrek stated it was complete with that regard. #29 is complete list of site improvements except for principal accessory structures in the items and quantities of them. – They request a waiver. Mr. Schrek stated they provided testimony. Mr. Ward asked to be sure this is what they are going to be building, this proposal, because last time they provided a partial. He wants to make sure this is what they are proposing to build they are going to come into the next meeting and there are four more buildings and 100 more parking spaces. Mr. Contrelle said no this is what he wants. Mr. Souders stated subject to any of the plan revisions that the board and Mr. Schrek are requiring this will be exactly what is going to be built and policed by presumably by Mr. Rossi and Mr. Schrek moving forward. Mr. Schrek stated counsel acknowledged in the cover letter that anything no on here they would come back to the board. Mr. Ward confirmed by stating that would include reviewing the use of the property of it was appropriate. Mr. Schrek stated yes if it goes to class B he has to come back to the board. Mr. Souders acknowledged for the applicant. Mr. Duveneck thought #30 was an editorial comment. Mr. Schrek said that was temporary waiver. Mr. Duveneck stated that #31 is copies of all applicable and they ask for a waiver of that checklist item until they have approval here and move forward. If they don’t get approval here there is no sense going anywhere else for approvals. Temporary waiver for this. Mr. Duveneck stated bulk variances had been discussed. Page 4 was talked about – waivers. Public street improvements – Mr. Duveneck stated they are not contemplating any improvements other than what the County may require under their jurisdiction – request a waiver from #35. Lighting cutoff from property lines – Mr. Schrek noted the entrance has lighting that extends across the property line in the front. Mr. Duveneck stated there are no structures across from the sight, it is not excessive the light that comes out of the front driveway. Request a waiver for this requirement. Mr. Schrek disagreed. He thinks there should be cutoffs from keep within the property line and they also have to meet the requirements for sky glow. It is industrial but still a rural town. The

applicant agreed. Cut off shields can be added to any fixture or LEDs. They will provide that in the future – requesting a temporary waiver. #37 – inlet spacing and size to limit the impact of parking. Mr. Duveneck noted that 90% of the site is previously developed. Storage of block. Stormwater runs in one direction down towards the South Foul Rift Road where it’s redirected with the berms and there are a series of inlets that start on the subject property and goes through the adjacent property down to the basin. They do not want to cut that flow off and start introducing inlets and other structures. They want to leave it as it is and let the water flow as it flows today and not contain anything or add a lot of extra improvements that he does not believe are necessary for this site. They are requesting a waiver. Mr. Schrek concurred that a site inspection did not yield or indicate any areas of excessive washout or gullys or a need for additional drainage. #38 Parking lots over 50 spaces to be separated by parking stalls, aisles, raised curbs, islands – Mr. Duveneck stated he spoke about this in the last item and they would like to continue with the drainage as it is as he spoke. Mr. Ward stated that the stalls on the plan add up to 80 and they are looking to go to 100 trucks? Mr. Duveneck stated there are 50 total, Mr. Souders said according to his notes there are 30 trucks, permission for 50. Mr. Contrelle said he has 30 trucks now. Mr. Ward addressing Mr. Contrelle said if you are requesting 50 and that is what we are approving, where will you park them without coming back and modifying this? Mr. Contrelle stated you have inside the building as well. It’s a 26,000 sq. ft. building. Mr. Ward asked if he was going to park another 10 truck and everything you are working on in there? Mr. Contrelle said he could park another 25 trucks in the building. Mr. Duveneck stated there is also the area where the open faced equipment shed is. Mr. Ward stated that is not designated as a parking spot as being approved. Mr. Ward said if what we are reviewing is being approved, Mr. Contrelle then interjected that building would be his answer. Mr. Schrek concurred with this. Landscaping – requested landscaping waiver within the site. #40 all streets and roads and parking areas for industrial use shall be paved and curbed – request a waiver from that requirement. Mr. Schrek said if they start paving they run into a major stormwater permit. Not really gaining anything by doing that. There hasn’t been any complaints regarding runoff and if the applicant is satisfied with the operation as it is they should be granted this waiver. Mr. Schrek stated there is some block pavers throughout already. The allowable impervious coverage is 30%. That calculation should be placed on the plan including all that exist now. #41- buffer strips 40’ wide along all property lines. Mr. Duveneck stated there are natural buffers across the 2 sides and the only place that would be encroached within a 25 ft. buffer would be the back property line that goes towards Stateline because they want to utilize it right up to the property line for the storage of equipment and they request a waiver from that requirement. #42 – Parking area or accessory structures are restricted within the landscape buffer. That goes back to the areas stated before. They will put stuff in the buffer in the back. Mr. Schrek identified they placed them

in the back so they would not place them in the side buffer areas. Mr. Contrelle stated that is correct. Driveway parking areas, accessory structures are restricted in landscaped areas has already been addressed. Mr. Cornely stated the Township is discussing changing the accessory structure height restriction from 15’. He asked how high they want to go. Mr. Duveneck said the accessory structures are 26’ for the single stream recycling and the equipment shed approximately the same. The new ordinance may be 25’. The applicant agreed they could make it 25’. #44 – location of parking area restricted to side, rear and buffer strips. This goes back to what they talked about according to Mr. Duveneck. There is some parking in the rear which becomes a side if you want to call it because there are 2 fronts to this property. What is a rear yard in a normal situation is a side yard by virtue of South Foul Rift Road and the lot being a side yard just for clarification. Shade trees and installed curbs and islands – Requesting not to have curbed islands. Parking spaces 10’ required – they are showing 9’ for the employee parking. It is not a site where public will be coming in. They restricted the width to keep all the employees in one area. Mr. Schrek asked if there is enough room to make it 10’. Mr. Duveneck said they could. Mr. Schrek stated 9’ is starting to become an issue because of the larger vehicles being driven today. 9’ is becoming problematic. Mr. Duveneck agreed to make them 10’. Parking space length is 20’. Plan will be revised to make it that. #48 – recycling operation be conducted within enclosed buildings. Mr. Duveneck stated they are requesting a waiver from that but the testimony is that it is going to be happening within a 3 sided building. It is not technically enclosed. They are requesting a waiver for a 3 sided building. Mr. Cornely has no objection to that as long as they can prevent spillage and from recycling blowing all over the yard. Outside storage of materials is prohibited – Mr. Duveneck wasn’t sure where this comes from. He said Anchor Block had outside storage of materials. Mr. Schrek stated it comes from 165-45.4b. Requesting a waiver. Mr. Duveneck their outside storage would consist of the totes, roll aways, dumpsters. Mr. Schrek asked how that will be done. Will it be fences off and put in a staged area? Mr. Contrelle stated they line them up by size. 10 yd, 15 yd, 20 yd, 30 yd is typically how they do it. They do the same with the totes. Mr. Scheck said the definition is for materials and he said that is more equipment than materials. Materials is like stone aggregate, asphalt. Mr. Duveneck state a waiver or not applicable is requested. Mr. Duveneck stated that covers all items required for completeness. He said he has recorded for waivers #6, #9, #10, #11, #12, #15, #16, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27 (temporary waiver), #28, #29, #35, #36 (will comply with), #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #42, #44, #45, #48 and #49. #12 Temporary Waiver has to do with fire. #31 Temporary Waiver for permits was also agreed to.

Mr. Cornely requested a motion by the board subsequent to them getting temporary waivers corrected they we would give them a complete application. Mr. Schrek agreed they have a complete application subject to all the waivers. Mr. Rossi asked exactly what that meant. Mr. Cornely stated that means everything they have gone over now is complete, they have to take care of whatever they have to take care of before they reappear before the board. Mr. Schrek indicated to Mr. Rossi that if they didn’t have to get into the whole discussion of the interpretation this would have been done in the beginning. If it was not deemed complete they would not continue with a hearing. He said there is enough to deem it complete. Mr. Cornely requested a motion to deem it complete subject to the waivers being taken care of. Motion by J. Rossi, seconded by D. Rossi and carried by a combined vote of all in favor. Nobody opposed. Mr. Cornely asked if there was anything else the Board wanted to discuss regarding this application. Mr. Rossi indicated to Mr. Contrelle before he moves forward, if he wasn’t mistaken, Mr. Contrelle made a comment that his commercial starts at 3:45 a.m. and the other at 4:45 a.m. but he didn’t say anything about the decibel levels there will be. Mr. Rossi said normal is 65 decibels. He commented that in the Townships ordinance we do not have anything for noise and decibel levels are measured at the boundary line. The State decibel levels are set from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. at 65 and from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. is 55 decibels. He asked what the decibels would be. Mr. Contrelle state whatever a truck going down the road would be. Mr. Rossi asked about 3:45 in the morning when they start up. Mr. Contrelle stated they start a truck and it goes down the road....it’s a county road right Mr. Rossi...Mr. Rossi said correct. Mr. Contrelle said he doesn’t know what the decibel level would be but it would be whatever the decibel level would be for a truck going up and down the road. He commented that Sanico starts at 2 a.m. Mr. Rossi said he is making the comment that he thinks this should be part of the resolution. Mr. Contrelle said he agrees but he can’t give a specific decibel level. Mr. Rossi stated he understood. Mr. Rossi also commented that he believes he was asked what the trailer was being used for and Mr. Contrelle commented his employees are punching in and punching out and he at one time said “my business” and that is why he was issued a violation letter by Mr. Rossi because he is getting the illusion that he is running a business out of there. Mr. Contrelle stated the trailer is currently being used for his men to punch in and out. When he signed an agreement with Stateline Fabricators, when he gave them a deposit on the property, it was his understanding they were going to get the full 6,000 sq. ft. garage in order for his men to be able to punch in, they were going to use the 20,000 sq. ft. garage, they have yet to relinquish the 6,000 sq. ft., they are operating out of 2,000 sq. ft., he needed to hook up electric so he has men that can punch in. Because of DOT he needs to make sure there are accurate time stamps on when then punch in and out. His office staff is still in Alpha. Mr. Rossi thanked him for the clarification. Mr. Cornely asked if there was anything else for the Board. There was no comments. Mr. Cornely asked if Mr. Schrek had anything else. Mr. Schrek stated he didn’t get into the technical comments and actually Joe’s questions regarding sound should be addressed when Mr. Duveneck talks about compliance with Article 7 which is regarding sound. Department standards are quite specific regarding octave band frequencies cycles per second and decibel levels, however, he thinks the

State ordinance controls that now and it makes it more simple that you can’t exceed 65 decibels during the daytime above the ambient noise levels at the property line and are 55 at night which becomes the most important. Mr. Schrek stated that we probably aren’t going to know that unless someone goes out and tests it, and if there is a complaint it should be tested. Mr. Contrelle asked what the power plant is across the river and has anyone tested that? Mr. Contrelle stated it is pretty loud at 4 o’clock in the morning and his operation is a lot less loud at that. Mr. Rossi stated he is bringing it up so he has the information ahead of time. Mr. Souders stated then from a practical standpoint the State standard limitations are a requirement, period, you can’t vary that here and they are not asking to vary it but from a practical standpoint if there is a complaint someone would have to go out and have it measured. Mr. Schrek said when there is a complaint that is normally what happens. Mr. Souders said when you say at night, is there specific hours. Mr. Rossi stated that NJ has NJAC 7:29 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. is 65 decibel. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. is 55 measured at the property line. Mr. Duveneck said they would comply with the performance standards. Mr. Duveneck said one comment by Mr. Schrek was the plan shall be revised to include improvements to sight triangles. He wasn’t sure what he meant. Mr. Schrek said that would be based on what the County comments are since it’s on a County road. They can wait on that. Mr. Schrek asked Mr. Duveneck to call out any items they have an argument on otherwise than that you will comply with the technical comments. Mr. Duveneck agreed. #6 – Submit a geotechnical report to support structure and light pole foundation design. Mr. Schrek said they can discuss that when they provide the light pole design. #7 – Applicant shall provide testimony and design certification that proposed light plan complies with sky glow restrictions. Mr. Duveneck stated along with the performance standards it will comply. #8 – Applicant shall provide details for permanent stabilization of non-paved areas on site. Mr. Duveneck stated it’s either paved or it is stoned and there is really no plan to change that. Mr. Schrek asked if the berms are grassed properly and there is no chance of erosion. Mr. Duveneck said there are no issues with the berms and the water flows along the base of them and picked up by inlets. If it becomes an issue they will deal with it. Mr. Schrek said that it goes back to this was a paver block manufacturing facility and there is block and other unknown fabrics laying around, they will be moved and you have to understand you’re going to have to stabilize any of those areas. Mr. Duveneck stated they would comply by adding stone. Mr. Schrek said that will have to be an approval made by the Zoning Officer. #9 – Will comply according to Mr. Duveneck. #10 – Will comply according to Mr. Duveneck. #11 – Applicant shall provide all information and testimony to the Board to determine compliance with 165-45:4(f) Recycling Establishment. Mr. Contrelle indicated they would be in compliance. Mr. Duveneck reviewed for the Board the following requirements from the code and gave answers:

That the Planning Board shall determine specific performance standards for the receipts, storage and processing of recycling materials. He stated that is part of this sight plan and what we are doing with it. Length of time required for the processing of material. They have provided testimony of how long it will be on site. Activities shall minimize the degradation of existing lifestyle of residents and the community. Mr. Duveneck stated they provided testimony about that. This shall be determined to be based on the effect on existing transportation patterns. Ambient acoustical conditions (noise). Drainage and soil characteristics, surface and groundwater quality and odor product and similar considerations. He stated they provided testimony there will not be odors on the sight and they will be mitigated if there is any. All materials brought onto the sight to be removed and no materials will remain and be used on the sight in such a manner that would prohibit removal. He stated they will comply. Mr. Schrek stated they should make a statement they will be in compliance with current MS4 requirements that may be now that dumpsters have to be washed down under the new stormwater regs. Mr. Contrelle and Mr. Souders said there is no objection to that. 12, 13, 14 will be complied with according to Mr. Duveneck. #15 is applicant shall provide existing conditions plan and demolition plan. Mr. Duveneck stated the existing conditions plan, other than showing where the block is, is part of the plan they have created. He said it does show the existing dwelling across the street. There is no demolition other than moving materials. Mr. Schrek said this ties into what Mr. Ward was saying also that what you are showing is what is going to be because the plan versions have changed considerably. #16 Applicant shall designate on the plan off street loading stations. Mr. Schrek stated that is per 165-31 but that falls under the industrial zone that you have to have loading spaces. Mr. Contrelle stated the loading and unloading gets done in front of the customers house. Mr. Duveneck stated other than bringing in a container and unloading it as part of the operations. #17 Applicant shall revise the plan to include building, traffic, and sight signage details. Mr. Schrek said there’s a lot going on there. He referenced when him and Mr. Duveneck were on the site there seemed like the employees were mixed in where the compactors were parked. Mr. Duveneck stated that will get designated once it gets developed because they will be in the areas for parking and the trucks will be in the area where they park. They are comingled at this time until the full development of the site has taken place. Mr. Schrek said they may need visitors not beyond this point. Mr. Duveneck stated it’s on employees so he is not sure why. He said the only people coming on the site is his employees. Mr. Schrek said the point is you are showing a designated employee area on the plans, you are showing a designated area where the trucks and the compactors are going in and out of, what he saw at the sight it didn’t match that up. It would be a way of separating that. Mr. Cornely noted that there will be salesman, delivery people coming in. Mr. Duveneck stated they will be by the office area and the building. Mr.

Cornely said to put down signage as required and all agreed. Mr. Schrek asked if there is any business sign associated with the plan. Mr. Contrelle said not now but he would like to get one. Mr. Schrek said any business sign would be what the Zoning requirements are. Lot Coverage calculations were on the coversheet according to Mr. Duveneck. Mr. Schrek asked to include the impervious coverage area. #20 Roxburg Station Road is County jurisdiction. All of that will be handled through the county with a traffic plan that they are requiring. It will be copied to the Board when submitted to the county. #21 This application through various documentation conflicts with a class B at this site. Testimony was given that Class B is not being pursued at this time. #22 Engineering report – submit references and studies. Mr. Duveneck will provide all the studies he has for the Anchor Block development. Drainage calculations that support the size of the basin, he has all the as built information and he will provide it. Provide testimony reports as as-builts and he will provide it to them. Provide testimony reports to demonstrate compliance with 165-36, 37, 38, performance standards. They said they would comply with them. Mr. Schrek asked if they have to go back to Warren County SWAC for Class A permit. Mr. Duveneck said the idea is to hopefully satisfy the concerns here and get a favorable vote on the application then they would turn around and go to the county and satisfy their comments and requests and move ahead with their application. They would go to Warren County Soils and see if the work they are doing requires permitting and if it does they will secure a soil conservation permit, they will be sure the Fire Company is happy with all the firefighting lanes and anything else that has to be on the plans will be added to it and once you get Township permit and County permit site plan then they will go and ask for the Class A permit through SWAC but you can’t do that until you get both approvals. Mr. Schrek said he would like to get clearly on the record so it is in the resolution is the hours of operation. Mr. Contrelle stated Monday through Friday, no earlier than 3:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Most trucks are in by 3:00 p.m. because the landfill closes at 2:30 p.m. The burner in Oxford closes at 5:00 p.m. so there is really no reason to be coming back later than 5:00 p.m.-5:30. Saturdays the operation will be from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and typically there are only between 5 to 6 trucks that go out on Saturday. Having the recycling center will help him because he can use other drivers to haul that recycling material out during the week where he would have less trucks on the road on a Saturday. No operation on Sunday. If Monday is a holiday, Saturday will operate more like a Friday and the only other time they would have someone come in if there is some kind of accident on Rt. 78 or Rt. 80 because he does all the dumpsters for the towing companies that handle Rt. 80, Rt. 22 or Rt. 78. Mr. Duveneck verified the worst case scenario would be Monday through Friday 3:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. . Mr. Contrelle said that is when the trucks would be going up and down the road. His mechanics will be there until 7 p.m. Mr. Duveneck will need to revise plans and documentation to conform to that because they do not at this time. Mr. Rossi said this is one of the things that he brought up because we do not have anything on file. Motion by Beers, seconded by Rossi to open to the public for comments.

Motion carried by all in favor. A resident asked about when they wash the trucks, because everything is going to be taken care of with the 1000 gal tank, do you wash your totes and roll offs there too? Mr. Contrelle said he does not wash the roll offs. The resident suggested putting a high level alarm on the 1000 gal. tank so it’s not overflowed. For the record, the resident gave his name as Don Simons, 264 Ridge Road. Kelley Smith, owner of 75 Roxburg Station Road and 200 Roxburg Station Road. She and her husband own the majority of the property around this facility known as KelRick Farm and Star D Farm. Still confused after her speaking with Mr. Contrelle and Mr. Souders yesterday. They tried to clarify things but tonight she is hearing different things. Confused on Zoning permit issued based on testimony given. The zoning permit was given for parking of vehicles, testimony was given that “they are running their operation”. We know this is happening. Hours of operation are a big concern because she owns a horse boarding facility on both sides of the road and they farm about 200 acres in this vicinity. She is concerned about the amount of trucks going in and out during the time periods specified. She indicated that the State of NJ gives horses the right of way to the road. It is law and it is a 25 mph zone when horses are present. Like Mr. Contrelle testified he wouldn’t have bought the property if he wouldn’t have known that he could do his business there, well, the shoe is on her side now and she wouldn’t have bought the property if they would of known 60-80 trucks were going to be driving in and out of there everyday. She indicated that their use of their property is agricultural which is a permitted use in that zone. She never really thought about the noise but, thinking futuristically if she wants to build a house on this site will she have 60 garbage trucks starting up at 3:45 in the morning and heading out that road all at once. She gave some “food for thought”, Anchor Block came before the previous board members they were given hours to work which were 8 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.. Sanico runs their recycling facility on Hutchinson Road and their hours given to them by the board for their recycling were M-F 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Saturdays are 7 a.m.-noon. She realizes Sanico just runs recycling and a maintenance shop. They do not have compactor trucks coming in and out. They are her concerns. She does not want any business to be denied in the Township but thinks there should be some enforcement of what we are allowing in this areas. Mr. Souders indicated Mr. Contrelle wanted to clarify something Kelley has raised and he doesn’t have any objection if there is something in the resolution, or a note on the plat, with respect to the horses. He was familiar generally with the right of way issue but not with the speed limit restriction. He said that could be a condition of approval and Rob could educate his employees on that. Mr. Contrelle wanted to clarify something with respect to Sanico. Mr. Contrelle referred to Kelley stating that Sanico only has recycling and maintenance at their site. Mr. Contrelle stated if you drive on their property they have over 35 garbage trucks on that property so they run their business out of that property every day. They are in the same zone that he is in. Their trucks leave their yard at 2 a.m. in the morning. If you sit on their road you will see. Kelley disagreed because she has been on that site, she stated they keep their compactor trucks in Delaware. Mr. Contrelle disagreed. He said they keep 3 compactor trucks in Delaware and the remainder of their operation is ran right around the corner where he is located. Kelley said she will look into it. Mr. Schrek stated that if that is the case he wanted

to clarify the resolution for Sanico and Mr. Rossi might have to take a look to see if Sanico has some issues. Mr. Shreck stated from the Sanico resolution that the day and hours of operation of the facility should be 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays and 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, no operations whatsoever to take place on Sundays. They are limited to 36 trucks based and parked at this site. In order to minimize noise and emissions generated warm up time of each vehicle shall be limited to 5 minutes, applicant should utilize the electric engine block heaters in order to minimize diesel smoke. No washing of trucks shall be permitted on site at this time. That seems to be the limiting factors as far as hours of operation on that site, regarding the Roxburg Station road could we ask the county to allow some signage that would indicate that horses might be there with a 25 mph limit. Mr. Souders said that would not be an issue and Mr. Duveneck said they could ask the County. Mr. Schrek stated as far as the comment Kelley had she knew she was up against an industrial zone when they bought the property, which she understood, but her concern is regarding the operation. Kelley stated that even if it was another potential business she would have the same questions and concerns, she is just putting out food for thought. Mr. Rossi commented that one of the problems we’re going have is, they say they start up at 2 o’clock in the morning, he’s not going to be sitting out there at 2 o’clock in the morning and that is one of the issues all zoning officers have. Patrick Smith, owner of 75 and 200 Roxburg Station Road. Asked what the acreage was for the Sanico site...did he have 36 trucks on a certain amount. Mr. Schrek stated he didn’t think it was relevant to this application. Mr. Smith said he was just wondering if there is 10 acres and 60 trucks and there are 30 acres and 30 trucks. Mr. Smith said there definitely has to be a decent hourly timeframe. He mentioned to Mr. Cornely he runs a business and has to comply to a certain time, there are people who live there. Mr. Smith stated he has tenants, you have 50 sixty trucks, all the cars for the employees, and add in Stateline who has about 50 employees and now there will be 100 vehicles up and down the road. LMR comes back in and out during the day to fuel up trucks because he sees them when he is in the fields. He doesn’t want to hear they don’t come in and out during the day. The trucks are up and down the road all day, he has people trying to ride their horses, they are being disturbed and he thinks he still has a right to farm so maybe this should go to the board of ag and the right to farm should be heard there. Mr. Sounders stated he thinks the right to farm issue is more applicable to the use of his own farming activities. He doesn’t think they have jurisdiction to impose restrictions on non-farming activities. Mr. Smith stated he has to beg to differ because he was there before them. When Anchor was approved they only had 1 or 2 trucks coming in and out and now they are talking 50-60 trucks. Mr. Souders said they have testified to 30 trucks and at some point maybe 50. Mr. Patrick Califiore owns property adjacent to the property being discussed. He said he has a hearing problem so he missed a lot but he remembers there was a disposal plant in Harmony Station and the fumes were just terrible. Residents put their properties up for sale and everyone wanted to exit Harmony. He’s concerned about odor. When you talk about residential and commercial garbage you’re talking about odor. We want to keep it country and don’t want to be intercity with odors again. He said earlier in the meeting the Board talked about pigs, as a child they raised pigs, and now you’re talking about having an acre to raise one pig, now we’re talking about tons and tons of garbage. He is considered about the odors.

No further comment at this time. Motion by J. Rossi, seconded by Beers to close public comment at this time. Motion carried by all in favor. Mr. Cornely asked if there was anything else for tonight by the board. None were stated. Mr. Cornely called for a motion to adjoun. Mr. Beers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by J. Rossi. Mr. Cornely called for all in favor and the board voted as all in favor at this time. At the same time of the vote, the Applicant’s Attorney and the Board Engineer requested the Board to wait on the vote. Mr. Souders interjected and stated he was anticipating a motion to approve preliminary and final site plan or conversely to not approve he thinks that would be the next appropriate step subject to the waivers and the plan revisions that typically would be reviewed by Stan. Mr. Ward stated to Mr. Souders were there not revisions that needed to be made to the site plan? Mr. Souders stated not to the extent as he understood that they would need to come back before the board before there was a vote. Mr. Schrek stated normally they would be a condition that the applicant complies with any items addressed tonight referenced in his letter to the Board and then compliance documents would come back and that includes the County comments and other items we’ve been looking at when they are complete he signs the plans, gives them to the chairman and the secretary to sign also. So it’s an approval tonight for a preliminary/final site plan but subject to the conditions that your attorney will address. Mr. Cornely asked if they didn’t already do that. Mr. Souders stated you voted on the waivers. Ms. Morrow reminded the board they voted as it being deemed complete subject the temporary waivers. Mr. Cornely asked if they could come out of adjournment for that . Mr. Caleca stated he doesn’t think they technically adjourned. Mr. Souders stated they are asking for a motion and a second and a vote to grant preliminary and final site plan subject to conditions outlined in Stan’s letter and otherwise placed on the record. Mr. Cornely stated there would be a vote on subject to final site plan according to the differences that have to be take care of on their application. Motion by Beers, seconded by D. Rossi and roll call was taken: Ayes: Beers, J. Rossi, R. Cornely, T. Hausamann, D. Rossi, P. Ward. Motion to adjourn by Beers, seconded by J. Rossi and carried by all in favor.

Public Comments

Adjourn Motion by Beers, seconded by J. Rossi to adjourn was carried unanimously by all In favor to adjourn at this time. ___________________________________ Submitted by: Kelley Smith, LUB Secretary