All meeting minutes posted on the township website are unofficial minutes. Official copies of minutes may be obtained from the township clerk.

Minutes: March 4, 2021

A. OPENING OF REGULAR MEETING

1. Call to Order

A regular meeting of the Randolph Township Council was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mayor Forstenhausler. This meeting is held pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act. Adequate and electronic notice of the meeting has been provided by posting written notice of the time, date, location and to the extent known, the agenda of the meeting in Randolph Township. This notice was posted on the Bulletin Board within Town Hall, on the main entrance doors to Town Hall, it was filed with the Township Clerk, and it was provided to those persons or entities requesting notification. Notice was also provided to the Randolph Reporter and the Morris County Daily Record on December 2, 2020, by emailing them the annual resolution adopted by the Council on November 12, 2020. The annual resolution, which included this meeting date, was advertised in the Randolph Reporter, the official newspaper of the Township of Randolph and the Daily Record on December 10, 2020. The amended annual resolution was adopted by the Council on January 21, 2021 and notice was provided by email to the Randolph Reporter, the Morris County Daily Record and TapInto Randolph on January 22, 2021. The amended annual resolution which included this meeting date was advertised in the Randolph Reporter, the official newspaper of Randolph Township and the Morris County Daily Record on January 28, 2021.

2. Roll Call

PRESENT:
Councilwoman Carey-via Zoom
Councilman Loveys-via Zoom
Councilman Nisivoccia-via Zoom
Councilman Tkacs-via Zoom
Councilwoman Veech-via Zoom
Deputy Mayor Potter-via Zoom
Mayor Forstenhausler

Also present: Township Manager Mountain, Zoning Administrator Darren Carney; and Attorney Ed Buzak from the Buzak Law Group via Zoom.

3. Pledge of Allegiance

Mayor Forstenhausler led the Pledge of Allegiance.

B. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Sal Mineo of 10 Sweetwood Drive expressed concerns with the affordable housing projects; he suggested that the Supreme Court ruling be fought against or appealed. He was not against affordable housing and believed that the estimated 300 units currently in Randolph were enough. He stated that if the township complied with the court ruling, he could not see the required units being established at the indicated location as there was already a lot of congestion in the area.

Manager Mountain informed the resident that the township agreed with his perspective. He explained that the reason that Randolph was one of the last towns in the state to complete a plan was because the township had been fighting the requirements very aggressively over the past six years. He stated that the township utilized every mechanism available to address the ruling; while they agree with him, none of the issues he brought up- all of which are real issues- would matter to the state Supreme Court.

He informed Mr. Mineo that in the cases where municipalities did go to trial, the result led to significantly more units being applied to them. After seeing those results, a majority of municipalities decided against going to trial to avoid an even worse outcome. He stated that all the issues raised by Mr. Mineo were legitimate, but none of them could be used to make an argument to the state that the township does not want nor needs the number of units being applied. He stated that the township has argued that the obligation should be much lower based on the reasons presented by residents; they were just not acceptable arguments in the context.

Mr. Mineo asked what the repercussion was for not complying with the obligation. Manager Mountain informed Mr. Mineo that the builders could get approval for an even higher number of units if the township did not comply with the obligation. Darren Carney explained that the municipality could be put through a builder’s remedy, and the builders could come in and design as they want without any input from the township. The township would lose the ability to regulate the height, density, and distance between buildings, etc. He stated that this settlement gave the township the best control for the situation.

Mr. Mineo asked Manager Mountain if he was referring to the New Jersey Supreme Court; he also asked if the decision could be appealed outside of the state. Attorney Buzak explained that the NJ Supreme Court’s decision was based on the contents of the New Jersey Constitution, not the Federal Constitution. He informed Mr. Mineo that the United States Supreme Court would not address state constitutional issues; those issues are left to the state courts to handle.

Mr. Mineo asked if there was any other location for the units. Manager Mountain responded that the location was one project of many in the settlement. He stated that virtually every one of the township’s spaces is being targeted for affordable housing as a result of the massive obligation. He explained that because the property adjacent to the resident was the subject of an intervener, the courts ruled that the intervener’s property had to be considered as a part of the plan.

Mr. Mineo reiterated that the townhouses were going up in that location and there was nothing the township could do. Manager Mountain informed him that he was correct. Clerk Luciani informed Mr. Mineo that his allotted six minutes had concluded.

Joe Nalbach of 6 Diane Court expressed similar concerns about the affordable housing obligation. He stated that the projects would ruin the whole aspect of the neighborhood as the area would become burdened with townhouses, become massively congested, issues with setbacks would arise, and property values would be affected. He understood that the plan had to be settled, but he could not understand how the plan would be advantageous for the neighborhood.

Mayor Forstenhausler informed Mr. Nalbach that the township has been fighting the obligation for years. He stated that Attorney Buzak was one of the best land use attorneys in the state, and he has been battling for the township every step of the way. He informed the public that despite efforts, the township has not been able to get the density or number of affordable housing units lower than the current agreement; the number previously was significantly higher, however due to meetings with judges and lawyers it was cut down.

He stated that the township was being forced to comply with the obligation, and if it was not met, the obligation could become significantly worse. He explained that the township was working with the NJ Department of Transportation (DOT) to get improvement on the Route 10 intersection. He reiterated Manager Mountain’s earlier statement that virtually every piece of available property was being looked at and would eventually be developed. He stated that the NJ Supreme Court was requiring the township to meet the obligation.

Manager Mountain stated that every community in the state was under the same pressure and was making similar decisions. He explained that the number was larger for Randolph because of the size of the municipality, the amount of vacant land, and the attractiveness to developers for housing construction.

He explained that the township’s ability to argue the number down or change the location for issues related to traffic, availability of utilities, school impact, and impact on property values was not allowable in court to reduce the obligation or change the location. He stated that when examining the size of the obligation, no available property could be excluded, and intervener properties were given a higher standing due to the court.

He reassured the public that they have been battling the obligation for over six years with the best land-use lawyer in the state working alongside the town; every remedy had been exhausted. He commented that the courts were likely frustrated with the township because we have been fighting for so long to get a plan that is compatible with the vision of what the township’s development should be. He informed the public that a public hearing associated with the ordinances would be held; residents could reserve their comments to that hearing if they preferred.

Councilwoman Veech asked if Manager Mountain or Attorney Buzak could address the questions relating to why properties were selected and why the township did not have a choice as to where the housing would go.

Attorney Buzak explained that when the township filed its Declaratory Judgment Action, the court gave other parties, such as other landowners or people who contract on land, the opportunity to intervene on the action. The intervention meant that those intervening became a party in the case. He explained that the case was initially started by the township, but it has now become a multi-party case because of the intervener developers; this was not an unusual occurrence.

Attorney Buzak explained that once a developer becomes an intervener, the entity has a seat at the table for the township to consider that property and effectively has a leg up on properties that the township would have to consider. He explained that while the township does have a lot of land area, there is a limited amount of it for potential development. When contract purchasers come in and offer the property to construct an inclusionary development, the burden shifts slightly where unless you can demonstrate that the property cannot be developed for higher density housing, it is included in the municipality’s plan. He explained that this forces municipalities to deal with site-specific interveners and address their sites. The settlement agreements that the township has been able to achieve represent the best possible case that could be made.

He understood that skepticism may come from the public. He informed the public that he represented a number of municipalities in Bergen County and Essex County, and has dealt with and settled a number of similar cases, therefore, he has a basis on which to evaluate where things stand when compared to what happened in other municipalities. He shared that he was also the Assistant Counsel for the League of Municipalities and the Chairman of the League’s Affordable Housing Committee.

He recognized the reaction that the residents had, and informed them that the township has made all the arguments they brought up, in addition to many others. He stated that those arguments were not issues that the NJ Supreme Court found relevant to satisfying the state constitutional obligation.

He stated that it was a very frustrating proposition, not that anyone was opposed to affordable housing; the township has been a participant in the initiative for decades and has satisfied prior obligations completely. He commented that the township was a better place as a result of assisting with the goal. He explained that the burdens being discussed by residents were created by the market units, as they are 80% of the development project and the reason the township had to deal with the particular sites. He stated that the township had negotiated for years, and had been able to get the number of units down as a result. This was in his view, the best result that could be achieved.

Michael Donato of 5 Elshaer Court stated that he fully accepted everyone’s statements. He asked what the township was doing in anticipation of the coming units. He asked how the town was going to respond to the effects on infrastructure, schools, and taxpayers. He asked if the plans would be public information and how long the project would take. He inquired about the avenues the township would be taking to soften the impact on the community. He asked if anything could be done to keep them off of the property lines.

Manager Mountain responded that the actual impacts of the project were still to be determined. Unfortunately, it was impossible to truly predict if the units were going to impact every aspect of the township’s infrastructure. He informed Mr. Donato that the schools were aware of the issue; the township has been advising the school district of the obligation. He explained that the school district would likely have difficulty determining the impacts as they could not just look at the units and project how many school-aged students would be living there.

He stated that the township has been discussing the roads with the DOT for a long time, and with particularly more focus in the last five or six years directed towards the improvements of the intersection. He explained that the roads that have the congestion issues were county and state roads. The state and county have been made aware of what developments are coming and what improvements that township felt could help mitigate the impacts; the township has been pushing them monthly to move on those plans.

He stated that the impacts on property values could not be forecasted as just because there would be development on neighboring properties, it did not mean that property values would go up or down. He explained that because the projects were approved by settlement, it did not mean that they were being built in the next six months; this makes it difficult to plan for because it depends on economic factors, permitting, etc. The longer and more spaced out the developments take to be built will help ease the impact the community feels.

Darren Carney explained that 20% of the 40-acre lot was developable; it was the section closest to Sweetwood Drive. The township worked with a court mediator to require them to maintain at least a 20 foot buffering to adjacent residents to try and soften the impact with landscaping. The 100 ft setback had to be reduced to get the units in there. He stated that negotiations for this property occurred for over two or three years; this was the best outcome for residents.

Michael Power of 5 Diane Court stated that he appreciated the township’s efforts to challenge and limit the requirements. He clearly understood the issues with interveners and that the township could not challenge or re-litigate the development. He asked that the council consider, to the best of their abilities, actions that would get the project to be as minimally invasive as possible. He inquired about barriers, maximizing the number of retained trees, landscape, and how the developer would be managing the impact of lighting. He understood that some of the issues were county and state issues. He also expressed concern with the developments in stormwater management.

Darren Carney informed Mr. Power that many of the issues he raised would be addressed in the site plan review. He informed Mr. Power that the project had not been fully designed so the location of lighting and screens were unknown. There was a general idea of where the stormwater management system would go, but it hasn’t been engineered yet. He stated that if the ordinance passed and the applications moved forward, there would be future hearings with the Planning Board. He informed residents that they would be given notice before those hearings and that engineering plans would be reviewed by the township staff; issued reports and plans would be available for review, though it was likely that this wouldn’t be for some time.

Mr. Power asked about the periodic maintenance going on near the site location. He asked for help and the consideration of maintaining as much of the woods as possible.

Darren Carney informed Mr. Power that the state had a forestry permit for their work in the wooded area he was referring to; the permit overrides local zoning ordinances. He stated that extensive work was done the previous year in the area, and he did not anticipate the state doing it again this year, but he would keep an eye on it.

Councilman Loveys informed Mr. Power that the developers had to go through the Planning Board and the processes described by Mr. Carney. He stated that there was a difference between a developer coming into a piece of property for development, whereby the township through the Planning Board could negotiate the terms with the developer to lessen impacts, and the inclusionary developments that the township was being faced with. He explained that the unfortunate thing with inclusionary developments was that the township had to go through a lengthy settlement process to arrive at an agreement, and that the agreement was just that. He stated that the hope is that during the development of the sites, impacts would be minimized to existing neighbors, but there was no guarantee.

Mr. Power responded that he was not necessarily asking for a guarantee, just the continued consideration of resident concerns and that the township does its best to minimize the impacts.

Councilman Loveys agreed with Mr. Power. He stated that he did not believe there was anyone on the council who was not sensitive to that.

Mayor Forstenhausler stated the township was already aware of all the issues that had been brought up. He stated that the township has and will continue to do everything it could to minimize the impact.

Russell Moserowitz of 10 Diane Court commented that the most significant factor with the plan was the overall size of each development. He asked if the number of market and affordable units in each development was written in stone or if it was based on how many units the developer could fit. He also asked if the township had any jurisdiction or authority to limit the number of market units and have the affordable units be whatever is required.

Attorney Buzak informed Mr. Moserowitz that the answer, site specifically, was no. The 136 and 199 units with 20% affordable units are a result of negotiation and litigation; the developers initially came in with much higher numbers. He explained that the minimum densities that are typically utilized in the set-aside projects are six to eight units, and the number increases from there. He stated that the units were a relatively low density when compared to other areas and were nowhere near the density the developers were seeking when they first intervened in the case.

Darren Carney explained that the proposed density for the LYS was 4 units an acre that is what the ordinance was calling for. They are doing 3.1 units an acre. The Canoe Brook project was higher because it was a tighter site and they are using most of the land for development; the ordinance is looking at 17 units an acre on that property.

Mr. Moserowitz asked if the Canoe Brook Project was past the point of being challengeable. Mayor Forstenhausler informed him that it had been challenged over a period of years; it was beyond the point where the density could be lowered.

Mr. Moserowitz asked what opportunities there would be moving forward to address the project. Mr. Carney explained that more involvement would probably come at the site plan level; at that point, the Planning Board will be looking at architectural renderings and the proposed landscaping. Even before getting to the Planning Board the township staff will likely make recommendations to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. He stated that the one thing to keep in mind was because the developments are a part of housing settlements, the Planning Board could not require improvements that would drive up the cost of the projects; this was something that the court frowned upon. He stated that the township has worked fairly well with the developers and that residents could give the Planning and Zoning Department a call in the next few months to share their suggestions with the Planning Board.

Attorney Buzak shared from his experiences in representing other municipal Planning Boards in similar circumstances that residents were most successful when they focused their efforts on exactly what Mr. Carney was suggesting and what many residents had previously brought up. He stated that attempting to re-litigate or re-determine the settlement would not happen; he has found that the most success for neighboring residents came from working on mitigating aspects of the plan. He stated that both of the developers were responsible and generally speaking, build good projects. He believed that if residents focused on how to get the impacts reduced on their neighborhoods and their investments, it could yield positive results.

Mayor Forstenhausler stated that the comments from the public were appreciated and that when the plans were available, residents could contact Darren Carney. He stated that the Planning Board would review the plans and that residents were welcome to attend board meetings. Residents were welcome to make recommendations related to lighting, landscaping, tree changes, etc. He reiterated that most developers in the development stage would try to work with the township to keep the impact on the residents at a minimum if it is at all possible.

Chuck Sanders of 26 Sweetwood Drive thanked the Township Council for giving the public time to express their concerns. He wanted to know how the property would be developed and cited his concerns for setbacks and other things that could protect residential properties. Mayor Forstenhausler thanked Mr. Sanders for sharing his concerns.

Mr. Vitthal Moola of 4 Elshaer Court expressed concerns about the wildlife near the development area. He inquired about the tax implications that could result from the developments and expressed his concerns about the effect on water pressure for the homes in the area.

Mayor Forstenhausler stated that the township has gone to the courts with every concern and argument expressed by residents during the present meeting. It boggled his mind that the judge did not care about the concerns of implications on schools, traffic, water availability, etc. He was sure that if the previously expressed concerns were not considered, the judge would not be concerned with wildlife.

Manager Mountain informed Mr. Moola that nothing could be done with this project to address issues with water pressure. He explained that as a result of the projects, the township would be deterred from utility improvement needs or the expansion of services in existing neighborhoods. He stated that the township was aware of the pressure issues, but there was nothing that could be done with the related project to improve it. He explained that the project should not make the situation worse, but it does take away township resources to improve the situation.

Mr. Moola explained that he was referring to the township’s obligations to existing residents. He assumed that the water pressure issue would be resolved before the development lines were laid out.

Manager Mountain explained that the project could not be used as a way to address township shortcomings. He explained that as confounding as it sounds, resources that the township might want to apply or even areas that may need expanding to, in the eyes of the court, would have to be secondary to supplying for these projects.

He explained that in the eyes of the court, satisfying the constitutional obligation of affordable housing projects takes precedent over existing utility issues that the township might have. He stated that the township made the argument for applying water and sewer resources to existing challenges, but it was to no avail; the courts made it clear that they had to be secondary to the services that have to be provided to these developments. He stated that the township was equally frustrated and agreed with him, but there was not a whole lot of remedy that could be applied to make the concerns precedent over the projects.

Mr. Moola asked if the United States Supreme Court would not get involved with state affairs. Attorney Buzak explained that the township did not have the ability, in this circumstance, to go to the United States Supreme Court for the reasons he gave earlier. He clarified that the judges presiding over the courts in this issue were bound by what the Supreme Court directed; the same could be said for the intervener level courts as well. He did not want residents to think that the judges did not think the issues were inappropriate or being ignored, it was just that they were bound by what the Supreme Court directed. He explained that the judges may be sympathetic, but their hands are tied.

Martin Geller of 3 Daniel Court asked if the language of the ordinance being voted on was a part of the settlement. Mayor Forstenhausler confirmed that he was correct. Mr. Geller asked if that meant that there was no ability to change things like the height or setbacks. Mayor Forstenhausler confirmed that he was correct; he explained that at this point the township could not do that.

Mr. Geller asked about Sporn, one of the original interveners on the site. He asked if Sporn still owned the land even though they backed out of the order. He also asked if it was possible that there would be a cut in on Morris Turnpike to join the back of the development currently being discussed. Darren Carney explained that LYS and Sporn were located on two different tracks, one near Route 10 and the other near Morris Turnpike. Due to the way the litigation was forced, they withdrew the track that fronted Morris Turnpike; therefore it was no longer a part of the site and will only affect the piece on Route 10.

Mr. Geller clarified that he wanted to know if it was possible that the township could be faced with applications or interventions to develop the Sporn property in the future. He was concerned that the entire neighborhood would be surrounded by housing developments. Mr. Carney explained that the withdrawn property had wetlands on the site and that it has been for sale for some time without success.

Mr. Geller asked if there was a way the township could enforce an easement of sorts to prevent the township from facing a similar situation in the future; he was concerned that developers knew how to spend their money and get around those things.

Manager Mountain informed Mr. Geller that there was no conservation easement on the property. He stated that there was a possibility for anything, however, the wetland laws are strong and would likely be tightened in the future. There was not a guarantee that a developer could not try to come in and make an application for something more than the town thinks is appropriate. He explained that it was not a part of this intervention and was not a part of this plan; therefore if it were to arise it would come through as a traditional land-use application that would be judged on its merits and not under the pressure of an affordable housing litigation settlement.

Mayor Forstenhausler asked Attorney Buzak to address what happens after the township has satisfied the affordable housing obligation.

Attorney Buzak explained that the township and many other municipalities would be seeking a judgment of compliance and repose, which is a determination by the court that the township has complied with the affordable housing obligations. The judgment protects the township against property owners or developers coming in and attempting to force the township to lease out properties for inclusionary, higher density developments.

He further explained that the protection ends on July 1, 2025, at which point or sometime before there would be a fourth round of affordable housing obligation determinations; at that time, the township will likely go through a similar process. The current settlement is the end between now and July 2025 for all the municipalities in the state.

Attorney Buzak stated that issues of wetlands and environmental constraints on properties or other physical attributes of properties are the only things likely to deter or prevent development. The issues are things that the municipality will be able to utilize to try to reduce obligations that a third party decides the township has. He explained that over the last two or three decades the state has moved in the direction of further regulating the development and use of land through the issuance of permits and so forth; he suspected that the restrictions will continue. He could not predict what would happen with the property; however, he believed that the constraints on the property relating to typography and/or geography made significantly substantial hurdles for property owners to try to develop higher density sites.

Mr. Geller asked about phase 1 and phase 2 of the development layout concept drawings. He asked if the portion near Route 10 would be developed alongside the portion that was furthest away from Route 10 that would be affecting the neighborhood. Mr. Carney informed him that the areas in the plan would be developed. He explained that a project needed to be 50% complete before certain finances could be applied due to regulations; this was why the developers broke the project into small phases. He added that the developers could build it all at the same time or choose to build continuously; this was just a technicality with financial regulations. He stated that the project would likely be done in one phase.

Mr. Geller asked if all of the 136 units depicted in the concept plan phase would be developed. Mr. Carney confirmed he was correct. Mr. Geller determined that other parcels would be in consideration for development; he asked if the plans were the first phases of what would be another development. Mr. Carney informed Mr. Geller that the wetlands and streams on the property allowed for the number of indicated units; the number of units is the possible amount that could fit the area. Mr. Geller commented that he understood that the township’s hands were tied and that he appreciated that the council was taking the time to discuss the issue with residents. He thought it was outrageous that developments were forced onto undesirable land and suggested that they should spend the extra money and put the units closer to Route 10 and leave the neighborhood alone. He expressed that he was angry with the situation and that he was not directing his anger towards the town.

Mayor Forstenhausler thanked Mr. Geller for expressing his concerns. He stated that the township has tried its best every step of the way to limit the development and locate it to an appropriate area. He stated that the state’s strict restrictions on the wetlands prevent developers from building on wetland areas no matter how much money is spent; the developers could only build on the section that the state allows them to. He hoped that Mr. Geller understood and expressed that the township agrees with him.

James Deperna of 14 Diane Court referred to the property outlined in ordinance 05-21, Block 44, Lot 25. He wasn’t sure if the property was the one with wetlands. He asked if there was a plan that showed where the four-story unit would be going. Mr. Carney informed Mr. Deperna that the project’s concept plans could be found on the township website in the government tab under the affordable housing section. Mayor Forstenhausler informed Mr. Deperna that this was not the wetland property that was being discussed earlier.

Mr. Deperna asked if the plan showed where the four-story unit would be located. Mr. Carney and Manager Mountain confirmed that it does. Mr. Deperna asked if it was closer to the townhomes or further away. Mr. Carney explained that the development was at the center of the lot. There are townhomes between the Diane Court neighborhood and the midrise. He briefly discussed typography and elevations. Mr. Deperna asked if, by the center, they meant that it was closest to the Diane Court cul-de-sac. Mr. Carney informed him that the plans showed that townhomes number 5 and 6 were the ones that directly backed up to Diane Court.

Mr. Deperna asked if the back or front of the townhomes would be facing Diane Court. Mr. Carney informed him that the townhomes would be facing the interior of the lot where the roads were located. Mr. Deperna determined that there would not be any roads between the townhomes and the back of his property line. He asked if the entrance on Route 10 for the development would be going on the eastern or western side of the commercial building near Route 10. Mr. Carney informed him that it would be going on the western side of the building and that it could be seen on the concept plan. Mr. Deperna asked if some or all of the units would be rental units. Mr. Carney informed him that the units on lot 25 were rentals; the other lot would be owner-occupied units.

Mr. Deperna asked if there was any influence over putting the four-story building on the corner of the lot closest to CVS. Mr. Carney informed him that there was an attempt to push the building towards that side of the property; however, the development is required to have circulation around the building, therefore it could not be located any closer to the eastern side.

Mr. Deperna asked if the township had any influence over the units being designated as rentals or purchase units. Mr. Carney informed him that the township wanted a balance of owner-occupied and rental units; the rentals function as bonus credit points for affordable housing, which meant that the township would require fewer new housing units to be put in. Mayor Forstenhausler explained that if the rental units were owner-occupied, the township would have to build even more units.

Mike Power of 5 Diane Court inquired about section 5F of the September 2020 settlement agreement that indicated that the developer would have to pay for water and sewer at their expense. He asked if that included an obligation for the developers to cover any impairment of the existing services; he clarified by stating that he was referring to the situation of the development putting more demand on the existing system and reducing the level of services residents were getting from it. He asked if the developer had an obligation to keep the township whole and put in the required enhancements to maintain the township’s current level of service for existing residents and meet the demands of the new development.

Manager Mountain informed Mr. Power that concerning utility, the town was not able to ask or direct the developers to remediate or improve upon service impacts that may be happening elsewhere in the community. Mr. Power stated that he was not talking about remediation in terms of enhancing the township’s services; he was referring to doing no harm. Manager Mountain informed Mr. Power that the project would not have any impact on the services for his utilities. He explained that it would not harm the services, it would just take away gallonage that the township otherwise might have used to improve upon services in other areas.

C. MANAGER’S REPORT

Manager Mountain explained

COVID-19 Update—The number of reported COVID-19 cases in Randolph has leveled off in the past few weeks. While daily numbers are higher than what was seen in the summer and early fall, the daily totals are no longer spiking like they did in December and January. Since the Township Council’s last regular meeting in January, the township has had 97 new cases reported, including 11 new confirmed cases today. The township’s total number of cases is now 1,447. The virus is still active in the community, despite the progress being made on the vaccination front. He reminded everyone of the importance of social distancing, adhering to travel and gathering restrictions, and wearing masks.

COVID-19 Vaccination Rollout—As of today, over 2 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine have been administered in New Jersey. The rollout continues to be slow due to the supply of available vaccines being lower than the demand. The announcement of the third approved vaccine from Johnson & Johnson is expected to help the situation. The Governor’s Office is projecting by the end of the month that vaccine supply will begin to catch up with the demand. In anticipation of the expanded supply of vaccinations, Governor Murphy announced the expansion of eligibility for more frontline essential workers and high-risk groups. Eligible groups include educators and staff in pre-k through 12th grade settings, childcare workers, and transportation workers, among others. Information on vaccination locations can be found on the township, county, and state websites or by calling the state COVID-19 hotline number at 855-568-0545.

Chief Stokoe Retirement Announcement—Manager Mountain took a moment to publicly acknowledge Police Chief David Stokoe’s announcement of his intention to retire as Chief of Police on July 1st of this year. He stated that David Stokoe has served the township incredibly well over his twenty-six year career and his past 8 years as Police Chief. A life-long Randolph Resident, David Stokoe invested his heart and soul into serving this community in each position he has held with the Randolph PD. As Chief he has lead the Police Department with class, professionalism and his trademark attention to every detail. Under his leadership the department has achieved so many accomplishments including:

The reformation of the internal promotional process and appointment of several new Lieutenants and Sergeants to leadership roles.
The transition to the County Records Management System
The integration of numerous technological improvements including upgrades to the Mobile Video Recording in Car Camera System and the Body Worn Camera system to be implemented this year.
Management of a number of new and innovative community outreach programs,
Close coordination with the School District on school security planning and preparedness activities.
Oversight of the Department’s reaccreditation placing us among a small percentage of Departments in the state to be reaccredited multiple times.
The recruitment and training of a fine group of young officers who have helped continue the Department’s outstanding reputation as a progressive law enforcement agency.
Worked closely with the Manager and the Council on responding to various issues and emergencies in the community during his tenure.
All while maintaining close fiscal control over the Department budget.

He stated that there will be much more to say about Chief Stokoe when the time comes to celebrate his retirement at the end of June, but he thought it was appropriate to share these accomplishments with the Township Council and the public. He congratulated David Stokoe on his fine service to the town and looked forward to working closely with him on the process to identify the next Chief of the Department. He will be sharing the details on this process with the council in the coming weeks. He stated that it was his intention to have the appointment finalized by June to allow for a proper transition.

Cannabis Subcommittee—The subcommittee on Cannabis Legalization met this week. The subcommittee has developed a schedule to meet with numerous individuals and groups to become more informed on the new legislation and to help develop a recommendation to the council on the action they must consider regarding allowance or disallowance on the following types of cannabis businesses—cultivation, manufacturing, wholesaling, distribution and retail. The subcommittee will also be planning several community forums and developing a community survey regarding the new legislation. The subcommittee consists of three members of the Township Council, and representatives of the Economic Development Committee, Chamber of Commerce, Municipal Alliance Committee, Board of Health and Planning Board.

D. COMBINED ACTION RESOLUTIONS

Item #5, R-68-21, and Item #6, R-69-21—Setting forth reasons for the Township Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 4-21 and Ordinance No. 5-21- were pulled from the Combined Action Resolutions to be addressed and voted on during the second reading of the ordinances.

R-64-21 Refund tree bond posted for Block 93, Lot 30, 70 Old Brookside Road to Jack Cwyl—$2,000.00
R-65-21 Awarding Contracts for supplying plumbing and waterworks specialties for the period of April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022
R-66-21 Refund tax sale certificate for Block 145, Lot 59, 236 Millbrook Avenue to ATCF II New Jersey, LLC TaxServ- $178,412.42
R-67-21 Refund tax sale certificate for Block 21, Lot 151, 26 Park Avenue to FNA DZ, LLC FBO WSPS—$64,030.23
R-68-21 TO BE APPROVED AFTER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 04-21 Setting forth reasons for the Township Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 4-21, which is inconsistent with the 2006 Master Plan, 2016 Master Plan Reexamination and Master Plan Update, and the 2010 Housing Element and Fair Share Plan as required under N.J.S.A 40:55D-62a. (LYS Realty)—Pulled
R-69-21 TO BE APPROVED AFTER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 05-21 Setting forth reasons for the Township Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 5-21, which is inconsistent with the 2006 Master Plan, 2016 Master Plan Reexamination and Master Plan Update, and the 2010 Housing Element and Fair Share Plan as required under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-62a (Canoe Brook)—Pulled

Councilwoman Carey made a motion to approve Combined Action Resolution Items 1- 4. Councilman Tkacs seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilwoman Carey
Councilman Loveys
Councilman Nisivoccia
Councilman Tkacs
Councilwoman Veech
Deputy Mayor Potter
Mayor Forstenhausler

NAYS: None

E. ORDINANCE: SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING

1. Ordinance No. 02-21 Calendar Year 2021 Ordinance to Exceed Municipal Budget Appropriation Limits and to Establish a Cap Bank

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled “Calendar Year 2021 Ordinance to Exceed Municipal Budget Appropriation Limits and to Establish a Cap Bank (N.J.S.A. 40A:4-45.15a et seq)” be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Mountain explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to exceed the Municipal Budget Appropriation Limits and establish a Cap Bank for Calendar Year 2021.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Seeing and hearing none, the public portion was closed.

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled “Calendar Year 2021 Ordinance to Exceed Municipal Budget Appropriation Limits and to Establish a Cap Bank (N.J.S.A. 40A:4-45.15a et seq)” be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Councilman Nisivoccia made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Councilman Tkacs seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilwoman Carey
Councilman Loveys
Councilman Nisivoccia
Councilman Tkacs
Councilwoman Veech
Deputy Mayor Potter
Mayor Forstenhausler

NAYS: None

2. Ordinance No. 03-21 Making the Provisions of Subtitle One of Title 39 with Various Traffic Regulations Applicable to the Gas Station/Convenience Store (WAWA) on Lots 2 and 5 in Block 137, 358 Route 10 West, and Regulating the Use of Said Roadways, Streets, Driveways, and Parking Lots by Motor Vehicles

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Making the Provisions of Subtitle One of Title 39 with Various Traffic Regulations Applicable to the Gas Station/Convenience Store (WAWA) on Lots 2 and 5 in Block 137, 358 Route 10 West, and Regulating the Use of Said Roadways, Streets, Driveways, and Parking Lots by Motor Vehicles” be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Mountain explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to allow the Police Department to regulate the traffic within the Wawa site located at 358 Route 10 West on Lots 2 and 5 in Block 137. He explained that there would likely be an additional follow up on some items that the Police Department feels should be added at a future meeting. This was a good base line to move forward.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Seeing and hearing none, the public portion was closed.

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance Making the Provisions of Subtitle One of Title 39 with Various Traffic Regulations Applicable to the Gas Station/Convenience Store (WAWA) on Lots 2 and 5 in Block 137, 358 Route 10 West, and Regulating the Use of Said Roadways, Streets, Driveways, and Parking Lots by Motor Vehicles” be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Councilman Loveys made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Councilwoman Veech seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilwoman Carey
Councilman Loveys
Councilman Nisivoccia
Councilman Tkacs
Councilwoman Veech
Deputy Mayor Potter
Mayor Forstenhausler

NAYS: None

3. Ordinance No. 04-21 Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph to Establish the R-7 Single-Family Attached Inclusionary Zone (LYS Realty Associates, LLC, Toll Bros. Inc., Sporn Realty and Management Corp)

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph to Establish the R-7 Single-Family Attached Inclusionary Zone (LYS Realty Associates, LLC, Toll Bros. Inc., Sporn Realty and Management Corp)” be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Mountain explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to amend Article III, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph to establish the R-7 Single-Family Attached Inclusionary Zone for the Property. Doing so will implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the Township of Randolph, LYS Realty Associates, LLC, and Toll Bros., Inc. and allow for the construction of an inclusionary development that will assist the Township in satisfying a portion of its affordable housing obligation.

Attorney Buzak explained that after the few land development ordinances were introduced, the township had to refer the ordinances to the Planning Board for a determination of whether they were inconsistent with the Township Master Plan and to receive recommendations from the board. He stated that the township received a memorandum from Planning and Zoning Administrator Darren Carney on March 2, 2021, which relayed the determinations made by the Planning Board at their March 1, 2021 meeting.

The Planning Board found that Ordinance 04-21 and 05-21 were inconsistent with the Master Plan. The board recommended that the Housing Element and the Fair Share Plan be amended in the future to include these two sites; LYS and Toll, and Canoe Brook. The Planning Board found that Ordinance 06-21, was not inconsistent with the Township Master Plan; although they did have a few comments.

He shared that the township, in this case, was required to give certain notices to property owners within 200 ft of the sites, in addition to giving notice and a copy of the ordinance to the Morris County Planning Board. He asked Clerk Luciani to confirm on the record that all of the requisite notices were given properly; Clerk Luciani confirmed.

Attorney Buzak explained that if the township proceeded to adopt Ordinance No. 04-21 and Ordinance No. 05-21, a resolution explaining the reasons for adopting them was required due to the Planning Board finding both of the ordinances to be inconsistent with the Master Plan.

He recommended that the public comments relating to the ordinances during the initial Open to the Public session be incorporated in this portion of the meeting, along with further comments that relate to the ordinances. He informed residents that all of their comments were a part of the public record and a part of the public hearing. He explained that previous comments did not have to be repeated, although people were free to speak about the issue.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Seeing and hearing none, the public portion was closed.

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph to Establish the R-7 Single-Family Attached Inclusionary Zone (LYS Realty Associates, LLC, Toll Bros. Inc., Sporn Realty and Management Corp)” be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Mayor Forstenhausler informed the public that Clerk Luciani agreed to make sure the public’s comments would be included on record by the ordinance.

Councilman Loveys commented that everyone was aware that this day would come. He informed the public that an incredible amount of work by professionals and the council had gone into the process. He sincerely believed that the decisions that have been made were done in the best interest of the township.

Councilwoman Carey agreed with Councilman Loveys. She stated that this was the best the township could do and commented that a lot of work had been put into the process. She explained that the township had no issues on the part of affordable housing. The township and council completely invited the affordable housing piece; the frustration was with the process and the systems running. She stated that the township was in no way objecting to affordable housing in the community.

Mayor Forstenhausler echoed the comments of Councilman Loveys, Councilwoman Carey, and the many residents who spoke. He stated that the council understood and shared resident concerns. He explained that the township had gone through this process for the past six or seven years with multiple mayors, professionals, and attorneys who have kept the best interest of Randolph at heart every step of the way.

He stated that the township has tried to minimize the impact on current residents and their homes, and understood, appreciated, and acknowledged their comments. He stated that the township has done everything they could and believed this to be the best possible outcome as things could be significantly worse if they did not pass the items. He thanked everyone for sharing their concerns and invited the public to attend the Planning Board meeting to voice their concerns when the plans were being presented.

Deputy Mayor Potter made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Councilman Tkacs seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilwoman Carey
Councilman Loveys
Councilman Nisivoccia
Councilman Tkacs
Councilwoman Veech
Deputy Mayor Potter
Mayor Forstenhausler

NAYS: None

5. R-68-21 Setting forth reasons for the Township Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 4-21, which is inconsistent with the 2006 Master Plan, 2016 Master Plan Reexamination and Master Plan Update, and the 2010 Housing Element and Fair Share Plan as required under N.J.S.A 40:55D-62a. (LYS Realty)

Attorney Buzak explained the four reasons outlined in R-68-21 for the township adopting Ordinance No. 04-21. The first reason was to implement the terms of the settlement agreement and assist the township by providing a realistic opportunity for the construction of affordable housing obligations and it advances the township’s position in that declaratory judgment litigation to get the township to the endpoint of the judgment of compliance and repose.

The second reason was that LYS and Toll have proposed a 20% set aside of affordable units; this creates a minimum of 27 credits against the township’s affordable housing obligation from this development.

The third reason was the current Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, against which this ordinance has been measured, has been declared invalid based upon third round regulation from the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH). As part of the Declaratory Judgment action, the township will be required to adopt an updated Housing Element and Fair Share Plan that sets forth how the township will satisfy its affordable housing obligations in accordance with current regulations.

The fourth reason was that once the remaining issues in the Declaratory Judgment litigation are resolved, it is anticipated that the new Housing Element and Fair Share Plans that include the LYS/Toll inclusionary development will be formally adopted by the Planning Board. He explained that these are the reasons the township has provided for justifying the adoption of an ordinance that is inconsistent with the Master Plan.

Councilwoman Carey made a motion to approve R-68-21. Councilman Tkacs seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilwoman Carey
Councilman Loveys
Councilman Nisivoccia
Councilman Tkacs
Councilwoman Veech
Deputy Mayor Potter
Mayor Forstenhausler

NAYS: None

4. Ordinance No. 05-21 Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph to Establish the R-6 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone (Canoe Brook)

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph to Establish the R-6 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone (Canoe Brook)” be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Mountain explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to amend Article III, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph to establish the R-6 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone for the Property. Doing so will implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the Township of Randolph and Canoe Brook Development, LLC and allow for the construction of an inclusionary development that will assist the township in satisfying a portion of its affordable housing obligation.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Seeing and hearing none, the public portion was closed.

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Article III, Zoning, of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph to Establish the R-6 Multifamily Inclusionary Zone (Canoe Brook)” be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Councilman Loveys echoed his previous comments on Ordinance No. 04-21. He stated that the township has done everything possible to work out the settlement agreements and Fair Share Housing Plan to be in the best interest of the residents.

Mayor Forstenhausler agreed and stated that it was the same situation as the previous ordinance; he believed the township did its best. He appreciated the efforts put forth by Manager Mountain, Darren Carney, and Attorney Buzak.

Mr. Moola of 4 El Shaer Court asked if he read correctly in the settlement agreement that the developer was responsible for all costs and extensions from water and sewage.

Attorney Buzak informed Mr. Moola that under that settlement agreement he was referring to, the developer was responsible for all costs related to extensions of water and sanitary sewer to their project. He believed Mr. Moola was referring to the comments made by Manager Mountain regarding the overall water supply and its relation to other development in the municipality. He elaborated on those comments by explaining that the township has a finite amount of water-based upon our contract with the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA).

He believed that Manager Mountain was saying that water had to first go to these developments, as the township is under a court order called a scarce resource order that only developments that have an inclusionary component can be automatically served. He explained that until this case was resolved, anyone else seeking to obtain an allocation of the remaining water supply at the MUA has to apply first to a special master, then to the court, although there are a few exceptions.

Mr. Moola explained that he was referring to water pressure, not the gallonage itself. Mayor Forstenhausler responded that Manager Mountain answered his question by telling him that the township did not anticipate any further impact on water pressure and that the developer was responsible for bringing water and sewer to their property, they have no obligation to do anything outside of his property.

Councilman Tkacs made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Deputy Mayor Potter seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilwoman Carey
Councilman Loveys
Councilman Nisivoccia
Councilman Tkacs
Councilwoman Veech
Deputy Mayor Potter
Mayor Forstenhausler

NAYS: None

6. R-69-21 Setting forth reasons for the Township Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 5-21, which is inconsistent with the 2006 Master Plan, 2016 Master Plan Reexamination and Master Plan Update, and the 2010 Housing Element and Fair Share Plan as required under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-62a (Canoe Brook)

Attorney Buzak explained that R-69-21 followed the same reasoning that he read into the record with regard Ordinance No. 04-21. He stated that is was the same basis, but is a different settlement agreement. He stated that the objectives that the township is attempting to achieve are all the same.

Deputy Mayor Potter made a motion to approve R-69-21. Councilman Loveys seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilwoman Carey
Councilman Loveys
Councilman Nisivoccia
Councilman Tkacs
Councilwoman Veech
Deputy Mayor Potter
Mayor Forstenhausler

NAYS: None

5. Ordinance No. 06-21 Amending Sections #15-48, 15-44, 15-30 and15-43 of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, Morris County, New Jersey (Omnibus)

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Amending Sections #15-48, 15-44, 15-30 and15-43 of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, Morris County, New Jersey (Omnibus)” be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Mountain explained that this ordinance amends sections of the Land Development Ordinance to be consistent with certain revisions recommended by the Township of Randolph staff regarding tree removal and protection, the regulations for development within steep slope areas, the permitted uses and area and bulk requirements; the changes will be applicable across the Land Use Development Ordinances not just this specific ordinance.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Seeing and hearing none, the public portion was closed.

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Sections #15-48, 15-44, 15-30 and15-43 of the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Randolph, Morris County, New Jersey (Omnibus)” be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Councilman Tkacs made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Councilwoman Veech seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilwoman Carey
Councilman Loveys
Councilman Nisivoccia
Councilman Tkacs
Councilwoman Veech
Deputy Mayor Potter
Mayor Forstenhausler

NAYS: None

Attorney Buzak referred to the March 2 memorandum outlining the Planning Board’s review and recommendations of the three ordinances and expressing concerns on Ordinance No. 06-21. He explained that although the Planning Board did not find that the ordinance was inconsistent with the Master Plan, they did voice some concern. He explained that Land Use Law requires that if the Planning Board has concerns that the council does not follow, the council must set forth the reasons for not following the board’s recommendations in the record. He read into the record that March 2, 2021 memorandum prepared by Darren Carney:

The Planning Board reviewed the above-referenced ordinance at its March 1, 2020 meeting. The board did not find the ordinance inconsistent with the Master Plan, and in a memorandum dated March 2, shared some concerns with the timing of the Tree Bank Contributions as regulated in the existing Land Development Ordinances. The intention of the board was not to propose that the ordinance be modified, but rather to alert the council of its concern with the existing regulations. The board recognized that the timing of the contributions has an economic impact on numbers, bonding requirements, are subject to recent revisions, and Municipal Land Use Law. Any change to the existing Tree Bank Contribution regulations would necessitate a thorough review of the issue by both staff and professionals, and any changes should be made in future ordinances.

Attorney Buzak explained that the Planning Board was simply voicing concern and asking the township to prospectively consider those kinds of modifications.

6. Ordinance No. 07-21 Authorizing the Vacation of a 25 Foot Right of Way Within the Township of Randolph (Canoe Brook Vacation)

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of a 25 Foot Right of Way Within the Township of Randolph (Canoe Brook Vacation)” be read by title on second reading and a hearing held thereon.

Manager Mountain explained that this ordinance vacates the township’s interest in a 25 foot right of way on Block 44, Lot 12, as more particularly described in the Deed between 855 Route 10 Associates and the Township of Randolph.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Seeing and hearing none, the public portion was closed.

BE IT RESOLVED, that an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of a 25 Foot Right of Way Within the Township of Randolph (Canoe Brook Vacation)” be passed on final reading and that a Notice of Final Passage of said Ordinance be published in the official designated newspaper according to law.

Councilwoman Veech made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Deputy Mayor Potter seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilwoman Carey
Councilman Loveys
Councilman Nisivoccia
Councilman Tkacs
Councilwoman Veech
Deputy Mayor Potter
Mayor Forstenhausler

NAYS: None

F. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Dr. David Timpanaro of 450 Quaker Church Road asked Manager Mountain how the township or a resident could request an investigation on the behavior relating to the Food Drive. He stated that he was aware that he has spoken about the same concerns repeatedly, but he did not appreciate being vilified or mocked in any way. He stated that he has reached out to the mayor and council’s statements of speaking to him about his concerns, but has only been met with silence.

He did not appreciate the council’s statements relating the number of emails he sent; he felt that it was not appropriate and that a resident should not be treated that way. He stated that it spoke volumes that the Township Council and Township Manager have said nothing in response to his accusation of what occurred with the food drive. He stated that not one person has reached out to understand why he would make such a public accusation. He stated that the council did not have to reach out, but it was a very serious thing to look at in a time where people are in need; he commented that it was inappropriate and spoke volumes.

Mayor Forstenhausler thanked Dr. Timpanaro and responded that he did not mock him nor did he vilify him, he was simply trying to answer his question. He stated that the comments in regard to his many emails, was a fact and that if it somehow bothered him for that to come out publicly, he was sorry for that. He stated that he and the council have answered virtually every question that he had brought up, and they were trying their best to answer his questions and do the right thing. Mayor Forstenhausler asked if Manager Mountain had an answer to Dr. Timpanaro’s question.

Manger Mountain responded that he would have to see the request in writing, but from what he knew of the complaint, it would not be something that would fall under the township administration to investigate.

Seeing and hearing no one further, the public session was closed.

G. COUNCIL COMMENTS

Councilwoman Carey briefly touched on the Cannabis Committee as Manager Mountain reported on the group earlier in the meeting. She wanted to emphasize that the cannabis legislation was adopted by the state on Monday, February 22 and that the municipality had 180 days to determine and make decisions on whether the township is going to opt out of certain businesses related to cannabis. The committee will make their recommendation to the council not later than early July to give the council time to make decisions.

She informed the public that the library was temporarily closed due to another staff member testing positive for COVID-19; as of today, enough employees have tested negative to resume operations. She stated that the library was doing its best to stay open and provide grab-and-go, drive-by, and online services.

She commented that the Habitat for Humanity Virtual Gala was a well-run event, and shared that during the event the new housing and 25 units they are building in Randolph were discussed; the project would be the organization’s focus for the next few years.

In recognition of Women’s History Month in March, she took the time to give a brief thank you to the women in Randolph who, before the current council, served on the Township Council and as mayors in the community. She reflected on conversations she had with Lenora (Lee) Whildin, Randolph’s first female mayor who was elected in 1977, about what it was like to be the first and the pressure that came with the title. She stated that after Lee, there were a total of eight other women who served as mayor in Randolph, Betty Jaeger, Kayla Bergeron, Joyce Bator, Myma Anderson, Ann Huber, Trina Mitsch, Councilwoman Veech, and herself. She stated that she was proud of all the women that went before her and of Mrs. Whildin for her efforts while serving as the first woman mayor in Randolph.

Councilwoman Carey referred to the WAWA grand opening by stating that it was great to see another business opening in the community.

Councilman Nisivoccia reported that he attended the WAWA grand opening, in addition to the Habitat for Humanity Virtual Gala.

He attended a Municipal Alliance Committee (MAC) the previous week, during which the committee discussed their work on outreach to local houses of worship. Additionally, the committee is planning a few programs in coordination with the high school and middle school on substance abuse prevention and mental health awareness.

He shared that the Communication’s Work Group met and was working with Manager Mountain to update the township website and the township’s Friday communications. He concluded his report by sharing that work on the liberty tree project has continued and will move forward in the spring.

Councilman Loveys echoed previous council comments relating to the Habitat for Humanity event. He shared that he had also attended the WAWA grand opening; he believed that it would be a successful store. He shared that the Board of Health and Recreation Advisory Committee would be meeting next week; he would give his report at the next council meeting.

He responded to Dr. Timpanaro’s comments and stated that he knew of no effort to sabotage a food drive at the Randolph Food Pantry. He did know that a significant number of people contributed to the food pantry during the previous year and have continued to do so. He shared that earlier in the day the Randolph Police Department donated $1,000, through WAWA, to the local pantry. He stated that members of the community who have been to the lower level of the community center know what the food pantry used to be and what it is today. He explained that the limited capacity was the only issue. He explained that the Randolph Food Pantry is designed to meet the needs of residents and that the program was doing a fine job doing so.

Councilman Tkacs reported that in addition to the Planning Board’s work on the ordinances discussed during the meeting, the board approved a resolution for Elbaum Homes at Pleasant Ridge. He stated that the site plans are for 16 townhouses and two buildings on Sussex Turnpike; three of the units will be affordable housing units and the construction will be on the current site of three different single-family homes that will be merged. The site will be located between the Millbrook Avenue and Church Road.

Councilman Tkacs concluded his report by sharing that he attended a few Cannabis Work Group meetings and the DISC committee meetings, in addition to the WAWA grand opening.

Councilwoman Veech echoed Councilman Loveys’ comments about the food pantry. She explained that many times the pantry gets filled up because there is limited capacity and added that there are other ways that residents can contribute. The pantry also appreciates and accepts donations in the form of checks or gift cards so they can purchase the necessary food that supplements what has been distributed.

She reported that the Communication Work Group continued to make significant progress. She attended a Traffic Advisory Committee meeting and shared that many of the township’s police officers have participated in the Read Across America program, in addition to continuing to offer Police Department Baseball cards and the possibility of planning a Coffee with a Cop event at WAWA.

She attended many Cannabis Work Group meetings and commented that she was glad that a survey will be opening to the public to gather further information. She informed the public that many different issues needed to be considered and that the group had an immense task ahead. She attended the Habitat for Humanity Gala and echoed previous comments related to the Bennett Avenue project and added that with 25 units planned, it was the largest build the organization has planned.

In recognition of Chief Stokoe’s retirement and the transition that the township would be undertaking as a new chief is selected, Councilwoman Veech thanked Chief Stokoe for devoting the last 26 years to the Police Department and township.

Deputy Mayor Potter reported that the Communications Work Group met on February 25. The group is looking into creating easier ways for residents to opt into the township’s communication channels; recommendations will be passed to the township manager for consideration. The group is also in the process of locating links to one easy-to-find page on the website, in addition to gathering additional content for the website. She shared that the group asked council members to encourage their boards and committees to submit informational content to be distributed via township communication channels. She reported that she had attended Diversity and Inclusion Steering Committee (DISC) meetings and subcommittee meetings.

She reported that she has been working with Manager Mountain, the Township Health Department, Community Services, and a group of tech-savvy volunteers to secure vaccination appointments for Randolph seniors. The volunteers have been working with a group in Chester to get the process in Randolph defined. The training was conducted on Tuesday, March 2, and was extensive. She stated that any senior, 65 and older, requesting assistance with scheduling an appointment for the COVID-19 vaccine can call the Randolph COVID-19 Vaccine Assistance Hotline at 908-955-3996.

Mayor Forstenhausler expressed his appreciation for Chief Stokoe’s service. He commented that in past meetings with the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office he has heard great things about Chief Stokoe and the Police Department’s professionalism. He stated that Chief Stokoe would be missed and that he looked forward to working with Manager Mountain to get his replacement in place prior to his retirement. He wished Chief Stokoe all the best in his retirement.

He stated that the township allocated $900,000 in cash was to road resurfacing in this year’s budget, and that the township had additionally been awarded a state grant for $500,000. He explained that a total of $1.4 million was being spent on the road resurfacing program and commented that a positive resulting from the state gas tax was that the township was getting some money back to repave Calais Road.

He shared that on Tuesday he participated on a conference call with the grand master and all the attorneys involved in discussing the Affordable Housing Agreements and getting the numbers to where they need to be. Following that meeting he attended an Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting. The EDC is working on a program that will provide masks at various locations in Randolph.

He reported that the Governor’s Office hosted a Zoom meeting to update mayors and officials on COVID-19 vaccines. The meeting was specifically for Morris County; the Governor’s Office commented that Morris County was doing a great job. The county is the second best in the state in terms of vaccination. Mayor Forstenhausler explained that currently out of the eligible residents in Morris County for vaccinations, 27.4% have received their first vaccine injection, and 14.82% have received their second injection. He echoed Deputy Mayor Potter’s comments about Randolph volunteers assisting seniors in making vaccination appointments. He reminded the public that Walmart was offering vaccines to individuals 75 years or older. The Governor’s Office reported that 75,000 doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was received; the vaccine is easier to administer since it is only one shot and does not require refrigeration at extreme temperatures. The state was uncertain of when more vaccines would be received. He explained that most the vaccines are planned for distribution to older residents and will go to the areas where the most number of older residents receiving the vaccine will be reached at one time.

He concluded his report by sharing that along with Assemblywoman Aura Dunn, Manager Mountain, the Township Council, Township Police, EMS, and Fire Fighters, in addition to other local officials, attended the grand opening of the new WAWA on Route 10. He commented that it was a wonderful addition to the community and encouraged everyone to visit Randolph’s newest business.

Councilman Loveys commented on the retirement announcement of Police Chief Stokoe. He stated that he had mixed emotions when the council was alerted to the news. On one hand, he was happy that after serving the community for 26 years with dedication, professionalism, and passion, he now had the ability to retire and spend time with his family. On the other hand, the news was saddening in that he would be greatly missed. Councilman Loveys concluded his comment by stating that Chief Stokoe did a great job for the township, and in his opinion, pointed the Police Department in a very positive direction.

H. EXECUTIVE SESSION

WHEREAS, Section 8 of the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 231, P.L. 1975 (N.J.S.A. 10:4-12) permits the exclusion of the public from a meeting under certain circumstances; and

WHEREAS, this public body is of the opinion that such circumstances presently exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Township of Randolph, in the County of Morris, and State of New Jersey, as follows:

1. The public shall be excluded from the Executive portion of the meeting.

2. The general nature of the subject matter to be discussed is as follows:

Randolph Rock Stars Community Volunteer of the Year

3. As nearly as now can be ascertained, the matter or matters to be discussed at this time will be disclosed to the public at such time and under such circumstances as are prescribed by law.

4. At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the Council may or may not reconvene in public session for the purpose of taking formal action.

Councilwoman Veech made a motion to move into Executive Session at 7:35 p.m. Councilman Nisivoccia seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilwoman Carey
Councilman Loveys
Councilman Nisivoccia
Councilman Tkacs
Councilwoman Veech
Deputy Mayor Potter
Mayor Forstenhausler

NAYS: None

Councilman Nisivoccia made a motion to close the Executive Session at 8:05 p.m. Councilwoman Veech seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilwoman Carey
Councilman Loveys
Councilman Nisivoccia
Councilman Tkacs
Councilwoman Veech
Deputy Mayor Potter
Mayor Forstenhausler

NAYS: None

I. ADJOURNMENT

Councilwoman Carey made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 pm. Councilman Tkacs seconded the motion, and the following roll call vote was taken:

AYES:
Councilwoman Carey
Councilman Loveys
Councilman Nisivoccia
Councilman Tkacs
Councilwoman Veech
Deputy Mayor Potter
Mayor Forstenhausler

NAYS: None