MILLINGTON QUARRY, INC.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Bernards Township Code Section 4-9, Millington Quarry, Inc., submitted a proposed rehabilitation plan to the Bernards Township Planning Board in connection with the existing quarry operation on Stonehouse Road, which property is designated as Lot 4 in Block 164 on the tax map of Bernards Township; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a six-sheet rehabilitation plan prepared by Page Engineering Consultants, dated January 2, 2003, last revised on February 5, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered the rehabilitation plan at a public hearing held on March 18, 2003, May 6, 2003, June 23, 2003, July 22, 2003, September 30, 2003, October 21, 2003, November 17, 2003, December 2, 2003, March 2, 2004, May 4, 2004, June 22, 2004, August 17, 2004, November 1, 2004, and December 6, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Board makes the following findings, conclusions and recommendations:
1. The Municipal Land Use Law, specifically N.J.S.A. 40:55D-26b, provides that a governing body may by ordinance provide for the reference of any matter to the planning board for a report and recommendation regarding a matter in question. The statutory provision is often times referred to as the advisory power of the planning board. The statute provides that whenever the planning board shall have made a recommendation regarding a matter authorized by the governing body, the recommendation may be rejected only by a majority of the full authorized membership of such governing body.
2. The Code of Bernards Township, Section 4-9 provides for licensing and
regulation of quarries for the protection of persons and property. As part of the licensing process, Code Section 4-9.5, requires a quarry to submit a rehabilitation plan for the purpose of returning the quarry property to conditions permitted under the zoning ordinance that do not endanger the health and safety of the public and do not endanger natural resources such as ground water and soil erosion. The purpose of the rehabilitation plan is to describe those conditions, how they will be met, and the cost to meet the conditions. Pursuant to the ordinance, a rehabilitation plan of the quarry property together with the data required under Code Subsection 4-9.4, is to be submitted to the Planning Board for review and report to the Township Committee. The Planning Board is required to review the plan to ensure consistency with each and every provision of Code Subsection 4-9.4 and 4-9.5, including environmental, health, safety and other factors affecting the public welfare. The Planning Board is charged with conducting a hearing, and following normal practices used for development applications in such hearing. Testimony is to be presented under oath, and there is to be an opportunity for the public to question witnesses and submit testimony. The Planning Board is charged with reviewing the feasibility and compliance of the plan, and must submit a report to the Township Committee setting forth findings and recommendations, and noting any deficiencies and suggested changes in the plan.
3. Pursuant to the requirements of the Ordinance, the Planning Board held fourteen public hearings, marked forty-six applicant’s exhibits, marked two Board exhibits, marked seventeen objector exhibits, and heard extensive testimony and cross-examination from all parties in interest.
4. The Planning Board reviewed the plan pursuant to the requirements of Code Sections 4-9.4 and 4-9.5. This resolution serves as the findings and recommendations of the Board to the Township Committee for purposes of taking final action.
5. The Board was satisfied the applicant had made sufficient submissions under Code Section 4-9.4 for the plan to be considered for substantive compliance. The standards for substantive compliance are set forth in Code Section 4-9.5.b.1-19.
6. The plan is required to propose an ultimate use of the property permitted by the Township Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes that upon cessation of quarry operation the site will be rehabilitated in order to create a lake and the potential for single family residential development consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The issues related to that plan, and the differences between a prior approved rehabilitation plan, are referenced hereinafter. While the rehabilitation plan does show conceptual residential development, the applicant argued the conceptual plan could not be considered as a development plan, and therefore, no review was conducted as to the appropriateness, conformance, or viability of the proposed concept. In other words, the Planning Board did not review the concept as if it were an application for subdivision, but only to the extent it conceptually called for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The specifics of the plan would have to be dealt with at the time a development application is filed. The Board is aware that at the same time the applicant was making arguments that the Board should not consider the concept as a development plan, and should not review the details, it was being argued in court against the Township by the applicant that a prior rehabilitation plan entitled the applicant to vested rights to prior zoning as a result of substantial reliance. These positions were inconsistent. The Board wishes to make clear that the concept plan for possible future development contained in the rehabilitation is not a development plan, no vested rights attach to the concept plan, it is to be given no greater weight than an informal plan submitted under the MLUL (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10.1), and is not a plan upon which the applicant or any future developer may claim substantial reliance or any vested rights.
7. At the hearing on March 18, 2003, the Board heard that the quarry started in 1895, and contemplated it would run out of product and cease operations in 8 years. The rehabilitation plan contemplated future development of a 62.5 acre lake, and 2 acre residential lots. The applicant was of the view that a development plan could be constructed to satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. It was the position of the applicant that a plan including 2 acre lots would provide what the applicant viewed to be an “adequate return.” The applicant presented Kevin Page, P.E., as an expert in quarry rehabilitation. While the Board has recognized Mr. Page as a professional engineer in the past, it accepted on a split vote of six in favor and three opposed his credentials as a rehabilitation expert. He explained the property is almost quarried out. The crushers sit on a plateau, which is essentially the only rock left in the quarry. It is anticipated that in two to three years the crushers will be replaced and put on the floor of the quarry, and the plateau will be quarried. He equated the rehabilitation plan to a grading plan.
8. In a prior rehabilitation plan, the lake, it was believed, would fill to an elevation of 280, where there would be an outflow. The hydrologist retained by the applicant later explained why such elevation would not be achieved. The present plan calls for the lake to cover 15.5 acres, and be 25 feet deep in one year, cover 30 acres and be 70 feet deep in five years, cover 41.3 acres and be 100 feet deep in 10 years, cover 49.9 acres and be 125 feet in 15 years, cover 56 acres and be 145 feet deep in 20.3 years, cover 60.5 acres and be 160 feet deep in 24.5 years, and reach its final size of 62.5 acres and be 170 feet deep in 26 to 27 years.
9. The substantial difference between the prior rehabilitation plan and the present plan is the depth of the lake. In the prior plan, the 280 foot depth contemplated a 2:1 slope extending back from the edge of the water, with the slope extending into the lake for a distance for purposes of safety. With the lower water level, there will be substantial exposed rock presenting a sheer cliff. The reason is because the basalt sits, essentially, as a bowl surrounded by shale and sandstone. The water is now seeping through portions of the basalt bowl, and, once quarry operations are completed, will continue to seep into the bowl and eventually fill the lake. However, due to hydrostatic pressure, the lake will fill to no greater a level than the level of the aquifer in the shale. If it were to be filled higher, it would create the reverse dynamic where the water in the bowl would seep into the aquifer.
10. The sheer rock face does not comply with the requirements of Code Section 4-9.5.b.4 in that it does not provide a 2:1 slope. The applicant argues that the section of the Code excepts from such requirements steeper slopes which are consistent with an already approved rehabilitation plan. In the applicant’s view, such an exception means that because there was some sheer rock proposed to be under water in the prior rehabilitation plan, that the new plan is exempted from such requirement even though the sheer rock will now be exposed and be above the level of the water as well as the level of dry land.
11. If one accepts the applicant’s argument, it only applies to a portion of the
sheer rock face, not the whole as proposed in the present rehabilitation plan. The present rehabilitation plan establishes a greater length of sheer rock face than was approved in the prior rehabilitation plan. It is to be noted that some of the excavation in the easterly portion of the property has occurred, but a significant portion of such excavation has not yet occurred. The issue surrounding slope presented the greatest difficulties to the Planning Board in its review, and it is believed will present the greatest issues for consideration by the Township Committee.
12. What the applicant proposes in terms of the lake bottom is not the 2 feet of earth required by Code Section 4-9.5.b.2. Instead, where the water areas are to exist, the applicant is proposing 6 inches of cover which would be vegetated as a meadow, and eventually covered by water.
13. At the May 6, 2003 hearing, the Board
reviewed with the applicant where the soil would come from that would be used
to provide the stabilized fill required by the ordinance. There is an overburden stockpile near
14. Issues arose at that meeting about whether or not the overburden could support vegetation, and later issues arose regarding whether or not there was any contamination contained in that soil.
15. It was indicated by the applicant that the southwest corner of the lake
would have a beach area established.
16. At the June 23, 2003 hearing, it was clarified that the relocation of crushers would mean the establishment of portable crushers on the quarry floor, which crushers could be 200 feet long. Much of this hearing was spent reviewing a preliminary report submitted by the Planning Board Engineer.
17. At the July 22, 2003 hearing, the
applicant continued with testimony of the hydrologist, which had started at the
previous hearing. This testimony set
forth the issues regarding the filling of the lake. It was noted the area is near the headwater
18. At the September 30, 2003 hearing, the applicant presented a soils engineer, who analyzed the overburden pile to determine if it could support vegetation. The stockpile is 500-600 feet long, and 150 feet wide. Based on four samples, the expert concluded the soil could support vegetation, and referred to it as DOT quality fill. The Board had obtained clarification that such a comment meant you could drive on it. There is grass on the stockpile, and the expert believed you could plant trees. It was agreed that approximately 48% of the stockpile is gravel. At that point, no chemical analysis of the fill had been undertaken, and the Board agreed there should be some environmental analysis of the overburden before it is spread on the site.
19. The Board heard from its geotechnical engineer. He recommended there be contamination testing of the soil, and was not comfortable with the applicant’s conclusions the soil would support vegetation without top soil. The high gravel content was his concern, and the subsurface quality of the soil. It was his view the applicant should conduct a soils suitability test to see if the soil would support grass and trees. He recommended the soil be tested for organic content, and that a screen protocol be established for the existing fill and any fill to be brought to the site. With reference to the sheer face, he recommended a stability analysis be conducted on the rock, and that the overburden be stabilized at the top of the rock wall. He was concerned with water runoff down the face of the wall, and was concerned with a concept advanced by the applicant’s engineer to pump water over the rock face into the lake because it would accelerate weathering of the face.
20. At the October 21, 2003 hearing, the applicant again presented its engineer. He recalculated the amount of soil he would need to accomplish the grading plan. He reported he made an error in his earlier calculations, and he only needed 259,600 cubic yards of fill, not his original projection of 390,000 cubic yards. The difference was because he originally used a calculation based on 2 feet of fill throughout the lake, when he is proposing only 6 inches. He also indicated that his estimation of 900,000 cubic yards in the stockpile was not correct, as it was substantially less. He estimated the depth of the overburden stockpile to be 55 feet, but upon testing has now found it is only 25-35 feet to shale. As a result, the quantity in the stockpile is reduced to 259,800 cubic yards of fill. This is very close to the amount of fill he now estimates he needs, and leaves only 200 cubic yards in excess. He also changed his estimate as to when the lake would be completely filled. Based upon information from the applicant’s hydrologist, the engineer now believed the lake would fill in 15 years, not the 27 he originally projected. Based upon the conflicts in the testimony, the Board asked for greater clarity as to the height of the rock face, lake elevation, and size of the lake.
21. The hearing continued with discussion about development at the base of the rock face, and the fence north of the railroad at the top of the cliff. The applicant conceded the ordinance requires there be a fence. The Board continued to be troubled with the presentation of the applicant in terms of the cliff face.
22. On the west and south sides of the property, the applicant does propose a 2:1 slope. It was reported it now exists at 3:2. The applicant will disturb the stabilized slope, and accomplish the grade with fill. The source of that material would be on site. The applicant’s engineer indicated it was appropriate to create such a slope because there was no water below that area, and he was concerned with safety. However, the east corner of the site is now proposed with a sheer rock face with conceptual development immediately below. Board members expressed severe reservation about such a plan.
23. The focus turned to the cost estimate required to be submitted with the rehabilitation plan. The initial cost estimate of the applicant did not include any cost for cut and fill, did not include any blasting cost, was based on today’s dollars, not projected cost in years, and there was later discussion about deficiencies regarding cost estimates for water quality in the lake. The issue of the cost estimate was later resolved.
24. On November 17, 2003 the experts debated vegetation, aeration of water, reduction of fertilizers, the need to address algae, and the need to establish a vegetation buffer along the shoreline to prevent pollutant runoff. It was agreed there would need to be stormwater quality treatment basins to prevent runoff of pollutants. Since the elevation and contours of the lakeshore will be changing as the lake fills, the location of the stormwater quality treatment basins would have to consider the final elevation of the lake, the location of proposed roadways and the location of proposed buildings.
25. At the hearing on December 2, 2003 the applicant reported there were two additional areas where fill had been brought to the site over the past 6 years. The first area covered 6 to 8 acres and consisted of approximately 750,000 cubic yards of fill, and the second covered 3 to 4 acres with approximately 200,000 cubic yards of fill. It was agreed the material would be tested. There was a great deal of discussion about the additional fill that has come to the site from unknown sources.
26. The Board’s focus turned again to the cost estimate. The original estimate presented by the applicant’s engineer was $1,656,000 for the rehabilitation plan. A new cost estimate was presented at $1,404,952. The major difference was that top soil was removed from the plan. The applicant’s engineer acknowledged on cross-examination that the proposed costs do not match the plan, and he was directed to prepare a cost estimate consistent with the rehabilitation plan.
27. At the hearing of March 2, 2004 it was reported to the Board that the applicant had not yet completed the testing of the soils existing on the site. The Board heard from objectors concerned about the slopes, the security, the suggested need for a fence and rose hedge or some other barrier around the lake, and how erroneous lake elevations presented by the applicant had allowed for more quarrying than should have taken place under the ordinance. It was also suggested by an objector that the town manage and own the lake, not some homeowners’ association affiliated with the ultimate development of the property in question.
28. At the hearing of May 4, 2004 the applicant’s hydrologist submitted his report on the cost to maintain the lake, and establish aeration. He also discussed the test results of soils. It was his view that the soil on site is acceptable for the use and can be vegetated with trees and grass; and explained the testing had drilled into the entire thickness at five locations. The applicant’s engineer continued to argue that the cost estimates should not be based on completion of the rehabilitation plan, but something he referred to as restoration.
29. It was reported to the Board that the applicant’s experts believed the lake elevation will rise to a level of 210 feet above mean sea level. This testimony provided the clarification the Board sought on elevation of the water and height of the rock face (70+ feet).
30. At the hearing of June 22, 2004 the Board received a final proposed cost estimate from the applicant’s engineer dated June 15, 2004, which was marked as Exhibit A-46, and also received a cost estimate from the Planning Board Engineer which was marked as Exhibit B-2. The substantial difference between the two reports was the cost of lake management. Ultimately, at a later meeting, the applicant agreed to accept a revised cost estimate prepared by the Planning Board Engineer, at least as to the total amount, although there remained some disagreement on the specifics.
31. The focus again returned to the rock
face. Concern continued to be expressed
about the stability of the rock face, the effect of falling rocks bouncing off
of the rock face, and the need for safety measures at the top of the
cliff. The applicant’s engineer
attempted to assure Board members that sheer rock faces, such as at the
Bernardsville Quarry or the Palisades along the
32. The concept of creating a 2:1 slope up against the sheer rock face, while a simple answer to the question of compliance with the Ordinance, has negative aspects of its own. Based upon estimates, depending upon which estimates are accepted, it would take between 1.7 and 2.1 million cubic yards of fill to fully satisfy the strict interpretation of the Ordinance in terms of grade. The quantities of fill that would have to be brought to the site would be huge. One of the objectors has suggested the quarry could blast on the opposite side of the quarry from the rock face, blast out the central plateau, undo a prior subdivision approval, and make arrangements with other property owners, to acquire a good portion of the necessary fill from the west and south sides of the quarry to fill the north and east. The Board noted there were vested rights to that prior subdivision approval, and it would require the cooperation and consent of additional property owners. The Board concluded that portion of the hearing indicating that a lake management plan was required, not just a cost estimate. The Board wanted to see a narrative and a time line. With reference to the maintenance of the lake, the Board also came to the conclusion that the quarry owner should maintain the lake until the transfer of title, and any buyer would have to continue the responsibility of the maintenance. Objectors had argued the Township should bear the maintenance responsibility, and own the lake as a park.
33. At the hearing of August 17, 2004 the Planning Board Engineer presented a revision to the cost estimate, in the amount of $2,071,200. The applicant agreed to the total number which resolved that issue. The rest of the hearing was taken up by testimony of objectors who were concerned about the safety of the plan, wanted to see 2:1 slope maintained throughout the project, wanted someone assigned responsibility for the maintenance of the lake, wanted to see the lake owned by the Township and become a public park, and wanted some plan of diversion of water into the lake to fill it faster.
34. The last hearing on November 1, 2004 was devoted to interested parties’ testimony and cross-examination. Those comments included a request to rezone the property to multi-family use for luxury age restricted units to spread costs over a greater number of residential units, a request to explore diversion of the Passaic River into the lake, the need to establish 2:1 slope, suggestion that leaf mulch be added to the 2 foot of cover to make it aerable, the need to establish the quality of fill, the need for a water management plan, the need for fencing, a request to stop all quarrying which will exacerbate the slope issue, specifically in the east corner where the quarry intends to continue to extract material to create new sheer faces. Various objectors urged the Board to reject the plan, and require submission of a fully conforming plan before passing on recommendations to the Governing Body.
35. At the meeting of December 6, 2004, the Board discussed the various issues, and directed the preparation of a report for consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of Bernards Township does hereby refer consideration of the rehabilitation plan for Millington Quarry to the Township Committee with the following recommendations for consideration:
machinery should be removed from the quarry when the quarry operation is
complete, including buildings located in the quarry pit. The future use of the remaining building at
the main entrance on
2. The Township Committee should reserve the right to require that the applicant test on site native overburden material for environmental contaminants and the quality of the fill to support vegetation (both grass and trees) prior to spreading the fill on site. During the spreading process, the applicant should not be permitted to move any on-site material without the Township Engineer first inspecting and determining whether the material proposed to be moved shall first be tested. Any material currently on site that has not already been environmentally tested to assure it is comparable to native soils without environmental contaminants, should be tested before it is spread on site.
3. Any conceptual development plan included in the rehabilitation plan should be specifically recognized to be conceptual only, providing no substantial reliance or vested rights.
4. A stormwater quality treatment basin or other such control, in connection with rehabilitation, is not currently shown on the plans, and should be added to the plans.
5. The applicant should be required to establish a vegetative buffer to prevent pollutants from entering the lake, to be relocated as necessary as the lake fills. The vegetative buffer should be prepared and submitted for review and approval prior to the next submission of a rehabilitation plan, or any submission of a development plan, whichever first occurs.
6. The applicant should provide a lake management plan, not just a cost estimate. The formal lake management plan should include a narrative and time line. The lake management plan should be prepared and submitted for review and approval prior to the next submission of a rehabilitation plan, or any submission of a development plan, whichever first occurs.
7. The owner should have the responsibility to maintain the lake.
8. The issue involving the sheer rock face and the 2:1 slope centers on water level and the applicant’s desire to continue quarrying. While the prior plan complied because of the higher water level, the present plan does not comply with the requirements of Ordinance. The applicant should be required to submit a plan fully compliant with the 2:1 slope requirement. The suggestion that approximately 2,000,000 cubic yards of fill be trucked to the site after cessation of the quarry operation would not be in the best interests of the Township. If the Township Committee is to decide that a sheer rock face may remain, there should be a safety zone in areas where the sheer rock face will exist above areas that will be under water. However, all other areas should be required to maintain the 2:1 slope. The protection at the top of any sheer rock face should have some redundant protection, such as a double row of fencing or fencing in combination with some hedge material which is difficult to penetrate. The Township Committee should consult with the Police Department and other public safety experts in connection with a solution. In the lake, a 20 foot safety zone should be established. In all other areas the plan should be revised to comply with the 2:1 slope requirement. No development should be permitted, even conceptually, at the base of the cliff.
9. Should the Township Committee permit sheer rock faces to remain, they should only be permitted to be located over the water, and not above dry land and areas of possible development in the future. The concept plan showing homes and rear yards immediately adjacent to the sheer face of the rock to be created in the easterly corner of the quarry, should be, specifically, rejected. Wherever dry land is proposed to exist below the sheer rock face on the proposed rehabilitation plan, the plan should be revised to reflect a 2:1 slope. This area, in the easterly corner, is in an area which has not yet been quarried out to the extent proposed on the rehabilitation plan. It should be the quarry operator’s choice to quarry the area where sheer rock face does not yet exist and then reestablish the 2:1 grade to comply with the ordinance, or configure some other approach, which would comply with the 2:1 requirement.
10. The applicant should devise an acceptable plan to stabilize the overburden at the top of any rock face. Such a stabilization plan should be completed before the submission of the next rehabilitation plan review, or a development application, whichever first occurs. The plan should be implemented at the cessation of quarry operations.
11. The applicant should conduct a stability analysis of any rock face approved to remain, which analysis should be completed before the submission of the next rehabilitation plan review, or a development application, whichever first occurs.
12. The quarry should be required to measure the water levels in the two production wells quarterly for the next three years to help determine the final water surface elevation. The applicant should be required to install a third well close to the eastern terminus of the property if it is determined by the Township to be needed at the time of the next rehabilitation plan review, or a development application, whichever first occurs.
13. After the quarry completes operation, the
quarry shall direct storm water from the surrounding Pine Woods and
14. During the time the quarry pit is filling up with water, the owner should install silt fencing and other measures along the uphill side to prevent siltation and nutrient loading of the lake, and avoid the creation of cloudy water.
15. Temporary fencing should be installed around the water’s edge for geese control. The fencing should be relocated from time to time to match the water’s edge and the contours of the lake’s shoreline.
16. The extent of the placement of soil in the areas of the future lake should be further analyzed. A depth of soil material under the water of between 6 – 12 inches should be required. The soil must be suitable to support vegetation when above the water level.
17. The quarry should institute a screening policy in order to prevent unsuitable materials from being imported into the quarry. The policy should require (a) record keeping of origin of material, (b) testing of the material to make sure it is comparable to native material, (c) locational information on exactly where it is left on site. All such records should be available for inspection and copied to the engineering office.
18. A detailed planting plan for aquascaping and stabilizing the shoreline should be developed prior to the next rehabilitation plan submittal, or any development application, whichever first occurs.
19. All required Township and NJDEP stormwater management practices (BMPs) should be incorporated to preserve, protect and enhance water quality.
20. A storm water collection and treatment system should be designed and constructed as the lake is filling in order to minimize long term related water quality issues.
21. The applicant should supply the Township
with any records pertaining to the future volume or frequency at which water is
presently pumped from the quarry’s existing impoundments to the
22. The quarry lake should be managed so that no greater than the first 50 feet, and no less than the first 30 feet, of water below the surface remains mixed and suitably oxygenated year round. Extensive aeration measures will need to be taken to ensure proper water quality of the lake. A multi-layer designed deep-water hypolimnetic type aerator or a destratification aerator should be constructed prior to the lake attaining its final volumetric and areal capacities.
23. To facilitate the filling of the lake,
the quarry owners should investigate the NJDEP permit/authorization process to
allow the diversion of flood flow water from the
24. An algae control program should be prepared and included in the maintenance plan for the lake.
25. The owner should include in the maintenance plan a note indicating that a suitable fish stocking program will be prepared and submitted prior to the next rehabilitation plan, or development application, whichever first occurs. The program should focus on stocking the lake with fish such as large mouth bass, fat head minnow, blue gill, perch, walleye and other aquatic organisms.
26. The quarry should incorporate alternative bottom types in certain reaches of the lake to provide additional aquatic habitat. The quarry owner should include in the next rehabilitation plan or prior to any development application, whichever first occurs, the design for the creation of in-lake fish habitat. In open water pelagic zones of the lake, the creation of such habitat would involve the placement of rubble, rock and other substrates to create cover, feeding and refuge areas for fish. Similarly, in the shallower portions of the lake, laucustrine type habitat should be created in select shallow areas to promote fish spawning and propagation.
27. The revised cost estimate prepared by Peter A. Messina, P.E., dated July 19, 2004 in the amount of $2,071,200 should be established as the amount of appropriate security to assure completion of the rehabilitation plan.
28. The Township Committee should make provision so that in future development applications for development, a qualified geotechnical professional be retained by the developer to provide design recommendations and inspection services with regard to the existing and new fill, foundations of structures, roads, slopes, and utilities, as well as for the removal of unstable rock.
29. With reference to soil to be used within the areas requiring the 2 foot of cover, the applicant should provide a soils analysis regarding fertility, cation exchange capacity, organic content matter, soluble salts, and phosphorous/nitrogen concentrations.
30. Appropriate compaction of all fill to effectuate the rehabilitation plan should be the responsibility of the quarry owner.
31. It should be left to a future developer to address the issues of importation of topsoil, compaction of fill areas, and future utility connections required in connection with any development application.
32. Once the lake reaches the rock face, the owner should install and maintain caution markers (buoys) in the lake approximately 20 feet from the sheer rock face.
33. The plans should be revised in order to satisfy the conditions before approval is given. Where the conditions provide for future submission and compliance, appropriate notes should be added to the plan.
I, Frances Florio, Secretary to the Planning
the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a
resolution duly adopted by the said Planning
Board on the 8th day of February, 2005.
FRANCES FLORIO, Secretary