February 9, 2005

The monthly meeting of the Greenwich Township Planning Board was held on the above date and was called to order by Doris Rayna, Planning Board Chairperson, at 7:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 231, PL, 1975, adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act by:

  1. Mailing a notice of scheduled meetings of the Greenwich Township

Planning Board to the Express-Times, Star Gazette and Star-Ledger.

2. Posting a notice thereof on the Township bulletin board.

  1. Filing a copy thereof with the Township Clerk.

Sworn in by Attorney Edleston was James Adams. Mr. Adams was appointed for a four (4) year term by the Township Committee at their reorganization meeting, held on January 1, 2005.

Board members present: Brian Visconti, Frank Marchetta, Jim Adams, Tom Bolger, Ken Hoser, Doris Rayna, Tim Gale, Charles Stillman. Steve Babula arrived at 7:35 P.M. Also present were Michael Finelli, PE., William R. Edleston, Esq., and David Banisch, Planner.

Charles Stillman made a motion, seconded by Frank Marchetta, to adopt the minutes of the November 30, 2004 Master Plan workshop meeting. The vote is as follows:

IN FAVOR: Marchetta, Bolger, Hoser, Rayna, Gale, Stillman.

OPPOSED: None.

ABSTAINED: Visconti, Adams.

Motion carried.

Tim Gale made a motion, seconded by Charles Stillman, to adopt the minutes of the January 12, 2005 meeting. The vote is as follows:

IN FAVOR: Marchetta, Bolger, Hoser, Rayna, Gale, Stillman.

OPPOSED: None.

ABSTAINED: Visconti, Adams.

Motion carried.

PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION. No comments were heard.

February 9, 2005

Page 2

Route 57 meeting. Charles Stillman attended the meeting and gave a summary of the meeting. A 20 year survey of Route 57 had been done and it was determined that no road widening is required for the next 20 years. The State is developing workshops with towns through Warren County that Route 57 traverses through. Workshops have been held in Virginia and N.J. saw a benefit in having these workshops and that is

why they are introducing them here in New Jersey. The State’s idea for Route 57, from Greenwich Township to Hackettstown, Stewartsville was highlighting as one of five (5) villages where their initial proposal is to narrow the roadways and have slower speed limits going through these five (5) village designations as opposed to the higher speed travel areas. The State was discussing some scenic preservation, how to differentiate these five (5) areas from the higher speed areas; perhaps introducing a “welcome to” sign, some landscaping along the roadways, scenic scapes and village cluster development areas along the Route 57 corridor. There will be three (3) workshops throughout the spring. The next workshop is scheduled for February 28, 2005. Brian Visconti stated that he would like to attend the February 28, 2005 meeting.

Cross-acceptance meeting. Tom Bolger attended the meeting where the County was doing a final review of the major issues of the Warren County Cross Acceptance plan. One of the issues that Tom raised with the County was that the County wanted to do away with the PA3, PA4, PA4B and PA5, that is the fringe rural environmentally sensitive designations and couple all four of those into one rural designation. Greenwich Township vehement ally opposed that and asked that the County reconsider. Mr. Banisch, planner, sent a letter to that effect, to the County. The second issue was that we talked about, potentially, changing some of our PA2 zone due to the lack of infrastructure. Mr. Banisch is also working with the County in order to make that happen. One of the last things that was discussed was that in the center of town was designated as a Hamlet. Greenwich is in competition with other townships regarding funding, but having that designation would help the town get additional funding since the whole area in the Hamlet is already built out. The final plan will go before the Warren County Freeholders board at their meeting to be held on February 23, 2005.

David Banisch stated that he has been advised by the County staff that they have accepted Greenwich’s changes and have included them in the Cross-Acceptance Report that is going down to Trenton. The second item is that at the next Township meeting, David was asked by the County staff to ask the governing body to adopt a Resolution endorsing the Municipal report. It is a requirement that they have come up with this year and they want a formal statement from the town that the contents of the Cross Acceptance report are, in fact, the municipality’s response to the Cross Acceptance questionnaire. David suggested sending a letter to the township committee saying that we have been advised by the County that they would like a municipal endorsement of the Cross-Acceptance report and the planning board is recommending that the township committee endorse the report. The secretary will send a letter to the committee.

February 9, 2005

Page 3

Application #236-04, Jeanne McGann/Township of Greenwich, Lot Line Adjustment, New Village Road, Public Hearing.

The board secretary reviewed the Affidavit of Publication and found it to be timely and proper notice was given to property owners within 200’ of the property, giving the board jurisdiction to conduct a public hearing.

Jim Adams made a motion, seconded by Tom Bolger, to open the public hearing. The vote is as follows:

IN FAVOR: Adams, Babula, Bolger, Hoser, Rayna, Gale, Stillman.

OPPOSED: None.

ABSTAINED: Visconti, Marchetta.

Motion carried.

Representing the applicant was Lyn Paul Aaroe, Esq., and Michael Finelli, PE., who had prepared the survey. Attorney Arroe stated that one of the proponents of this application is the open space/preservation plan that is about to be consummated with respect to the adjoining 12 acres, lot 2, owned by Albert DiAngelo/New Village Associates. There is an encroachment issue with respect to the McGann property.

As the board is aware of Mr. Finelli’s credentials, the board recognized Mr. Finelli as an expert in the field of Civil Engineering. Mr. Finelli, sworn in by Attorney Edleston, stated that the application is a Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment application of the eastern most property line of the McGann lot, block 28, lot 2.02. The township is presently under contract with Mr. DiAngelo for the purchase of approximately 100 acres, 88 acres is located on the north side of New Village Road and 12 acres is located on the south side of New Village Road directly adjacent to the McGann property.

The application proposes to reorient the easterly most lot line, which Mr. Finelli showed on the drawing. This would eliminate the existing encroachment of the deck of the pool and the fence that exists associated with the pool at the rear of the McGann lot. The way the new property line is configured, there will be no area changes resulting from the application. There is approximately .04 acres which will be taken from the McGann property and conveyed to the DiAngelo property and there will be approximately .04 acres conveyed from the DiAngelo to the McGann property. This will clear up the encroachment associated with the pool, deck and fence and then would allow for Mrs. McGann to move forward with the sale of her home as well as the township to move ahead with, hopefully, the purchase of the DiAngelo property.

Mr. Finelli stated that the township did acquire with the State to see if the town could put this in an easement and eliminate the need to go through the subdivision process. The State acknowledged that would not be acceptable.

February 9, 2005

Page 4

Attorney Aaroe stated that a variance is needed because of an encroachment into the 15’ required area lot setback. A portion of the paving brick patio is encroaching. That portion of the patio is located 11.5 feet at its closest point from that rear lot line. Mr. Finelli stated that the applicant is asking for relief from that condition. That is an existing condition from the rear lot line, which is not to be reconfigured, to the pool deck. On the east side of the pool, it will be eliminated by virtue of the Lot Line adjustment. There is 3-½ feet encroachment from the required setback of 15’, which is accessory structure setback requirement, as compared to roughly 11 ½ feet, which exists today. Mr. Finelli stated that the rear of the property is very steep, heavily wooded and there is a retaining wall. Topographically, it would be very difficult to improve that encroachment by grading and/or reconfiguration of the deck.

Chairwoman Rayna addressed the public. Hearing no comments, Ken Hoser made a motion, seconded by Jim Adams, to close the public hearing. The vote is as follows:

IN FAVOR: Adams, Babula, Bolger, Hoser, Rayna, Gale, Stillman.

OPPOSED: None.

ABSTAINED: Visconti, Marchetta.

Motion carried.

Steve Babula made a motion, seconded by Jim Adams, to grant the variance, 3-½ feet encroachment, 11.5’ vs. required setback of 15’. The vote is as follows:

IN FAVOR: Adams, Babula, Bolger, Hoser, Rayna, Gale, Stillman.

OPPOSED: None.

ABSTAINED: Visconti, Marchetta.

Motion carried.

Charles Stillman made a motion, seconded by Steve Babula, to grant Minor Subdivision approval to Application #236-04, Jeanne McGann/Township of Greenwich. The vote is as follows:

IN FAVOR: Adams, Babula, Bolger, Hoser, Rayna, Gale, Stillman.

OPPOSED: None.

ABSTAINED: Visconti, Marchetta.

Motion carried.

Attorney Edleston prepared a Resolution and there is a correction to be made: Nevitt Duvaneck, PE name is to be removed and replaced with Michael Finelli, PE. Jim Adams made a motion, seconded by Steve Babula, to adopt the Resolution granting Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment to Application #236-04, Jeanne McGann/Township of Greenwich, with stated correction. Deeds will be prepared and reviewed. The vote is as follows:

February 9, 2005

Page 5

IN FAVOR: Adams, Babula, Bolger, Hoser, Rayna, Gale, Stillman.

OPPOSED: None.

ABSTAINED: Visconti, Marchetta.

Motion carried.

Greenwich Commons Amended Final Site Plan Resolution. Resolution granting amended Final Site Plan approval to Greenwich Commons, Greenwich Street and Route 22, was reviewed as to its form and

accuracy. Upon review, Charles Stillman made a motion, seconded by Ken Hoser, to adopt the Resolution as prepared. The vote is as follows:

IN FAVOR: Hoser, Bolger, Babula, Marchetta, Gale, Stillman,

Rayna.

OPPOSED: None.

ABSTAINED: None.

Motion carried.

Application #235-04, Medarex, Inc., Preliminary Site Plan, expansion of Building #2, Public Hearing.

The board secretary reviewed the Affidavit of Publication and found it to be timely and proper notice was given to property owners within 200’ of the property, giving the board jurisdiction to conduct a public hearing.

Steve Babula made a motion, seconded by Frank Marchetta, to open the public hearing. The vote is as follows:

IN FAVOR: Visconti, Marchetta, Adams, Babula, Bolger, Hoser,

Rayna, Gale, Stillman.

OPPOSED: None.

ABSTAINED: None.

Motion carried.

Representing the applicant was Michael Selvaggi, Esq. The application is for the expansion of building #2, located on lots 11.02 and 11.03. The applicant is proposing a new access driveway to the site through Lot 11.03 to Route 173. This entrance will be utilized as the main access to the subject site and the existing entrance to the site will serve as an emergency entrance.

Andrew S. Holt, PE, sworn in by Attorney Edleston, presented his credentials to the board. Upon hearing same, the board recognized Mr. Holt as an expert witness in the field of Civil Engineering.

The following exhibit was entered into evidence:

A-1: Drawing, prepared by Suburban Consulting Engineers, of a

site rendering for the Building #2 extension of Medarex.

February 9, 2005

Page 6

The subject application is located on Block 31, Lots 11.02 and 11.03, consisting of approximately 135 acres. The property fronts Route 173

in the vicinity of the intersections of Church Street and WarrenGlen Road and also the rear of the site abuts Route 78. The site was previously subdivided. Lot 11.02 contains the active research office, manufacturing activity on site and the balance of the parcel, lot 11.03, consisting of 95 acres is undeveloped, primarily farmland.

The site is located in the ROM Zone and generally is open fields. Presently, there are three (3) separate buildings on the property; a two-story warehoused building (building #2 at 88,130 sq. ft.), a one-story research/development building (building #1 at 76,000 sq. ft.) and a security gate kiosk structure. The property also contains a system of service driveways, parking areas, loading docks, septic disposal systems and stormwater management facilities.

What is being proposed is the addition to building #2, two-story warehouse facility. It will be a 50’ extension off the east end of the building. When Medarex was previously before the board, a requirement that was imposed by the board was for Medarex to construct a new site access at the east end of the tract, out onto Route 173.

Referring to sheet 4 of the site plan, entitled Overall Site Layout Plan, the building use and parking requirement table is shown. The proposal expansion total is 115,145 sq. ft. of floor space for building #2. The existing structure total is 88,130 sq. ft. of floor space.

There is a net increase of 27,015 sq. ft. of new floor area proposed. The staff count for the existing building is 226, including the security Kiosk, and proposed is 351.

With respect to the additional employees and parking, at the present time the site contains 236 parking spaces, plus another 54 spaces that were constructed with the last site plan, 10 handicap spaces, and some designated areas called 36 future or banked parking spaces. Including those future spaces, there is a total of 336 parking spaces on site. The additional 125 employees and the new usage and access to building #2, as proposed, is going to create a need for additional parking. What is being proposed is to continue the use of the 236 and 54 parking spaces that exist and construction of the new parking lot to the east of building #2, which will have 134 spaces and 5 handicap. The applicant is proposing to “bank” 145 future parking spaces. By banking these spaces, more green space will be able to be maintained.

Referring to David Banisch’s report of February 9, 2005, Mr. Banisch stated that the Board should condition any waiver that may be granted on a condition the requires the applicant to construct deferred parking if, after an in-service inspection by the Township Engineer, it is determined that additional parking is required. Mr. Holt stated that condition is what was anticipated. Future construction of those parking areas, if and when needed, as determined by the board’s engineer is acceptable to the applicant.

February 9, 2005

Page 7

Attorney Selvaggi stated that in the last Resolution of approval, mention was made of the access drive. To satisfy that condition, number 11, of approval that the Board previously granted to Medarex for a prior expansion of the facility, Mr. Holt stated that the further east

the access drive entrance could be moved onto Route 173, the better the arrangement could be. The new driveway is to be constructed approximately 2,500’ east of the existing driveway. The proposed road is a 30’ wide access road and will be curved. The driveway will serve a couple of purposes. The main purpose is access to the site, but the

stormwater management aspect of collecting runoff and controlling it are going to be beneficial to the site development.

The access driveway is lined with light fixtures. Mr. Holt stated that they are a 25’ high pole with a shoebox type fixture, similar to that existing on the site. That has been proposed to illuminate the access drive and to the new parking area. Lighting is proposed for safety. The applicant has no objection to a in-service light testing. Mr. Banisch, in his report, discussed reducing the height of the light fixtures along the access road. Mr. Holt stated that is a possibility, but he tried to be consistent with what already exists. He does not see any determent with the 25’ height. Proposed are 12 lights along the new entrance road. Mr. Banisch is not sure how essential the lights are along the driveway. There are plenty of dark roads in the township and people make their way safely along them. He would like to see reduced lighting where possible. Mr. Holt complied with the township’s ordinances.

A detention basin is proposed for lot 11.03. The runoff pattern from lot 11.02 was investigated also and identified that with the increase in impervious coverage, which would generate increase runoff. Proposed is the installation of detention basin #1 on the southeast corner of lot 11.02 and that will intercept the runoff that comes down from the ridgeline. There is an existing detention basin south of the access road. The stormwater design anticipated future parking areas as being constructed as impervious coverage.

Regarding topsoil stripping and earthwork, Mr. Holt stated that the majority of earthwork would come from the entrance of the access road. It will be safety relocated on the large tract and will not require significant trucking off site. The entire tract is farm fields so small portions can be regarded. Mr. Finelli stated that there is going to be a lot of earth both moved in excavation occurring by virtue of construction of the access driveway. There was no mention of any quantity. A couple thousand yards could easily be distributed. If it is more, Mr. Finelli will want to know where that is going and how it is being distributed. Mr. Finelli is asking for some amount of quantity. Mr. Bolger expressed a concern that with moving all that dirt, it is so close to a C-1 waterway, the Musconetcong River. Nothing should affect that river. The weigh station did affect that by mudding the river for an extended period of time. Mr. Holt stated that the plans do include a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan showing the sequence. Stormwater control measures have to be installed first before any activity starts. Mr. Holt’s initial estimate on earthwork is probably 10 to 12,000 cubic yards. Mr. Banisch asked the applicant if