Page 10 THE VILLADOM TIMES III • September 14, 2011 (continued from page 3) (111,000 tons) of material that would be generated would need to be temporarily stored on-site for dewatering and ultimately trucked to an off-site facility such as the Hackensack Meadowlands Commission (HMC). He said HMC officials had indicated they would receive the material at a cost of $10 per cu. yd. , but only a maximum of 20 truck loads a day could be delivered, which would also delay progress. Borough Administrator Gary Kratz said that dewatering of the silt substantially reduces the trucking costs originally projected. “The down side, he said, is that drying the material is a nightmare to manage, and it’s very weather-dependent,” he said. “When it rains, you lose what you dewatered. You’re going to be a long time, perhaps 40 weeks,” Kratz said. The proposal calls for dredging the lake in sections and storing the silt in a dredged section until it is dry and can be trucked away. Trucking costs, DeSena said, would be affected by a number of factors, including the price of diesel fuel at the time of the operation. Five permits would be needed, including NJDEP Flood Hazard, Freshwater Wetlands, Storm Water Discharge and Fish and Wildlife Lake Lowering permits, as well as Bergen County Soil Conservation approval. Approximately 20 samples of White’s Pond proposed dredged soil would be analyzed for heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and lead to determine if the proposed dredge material would be classified above or below acceptable levels of NJDEP residential direct contact soil. The classification would determine if the material is classified as hazardous or if it may be cost- White’s Pond effectively disposed of at the HMC, DeSena’s study says. The engineer said proposed work would take the lake back to a 15-ft. depth at the upper part where it meets with the Ho-Ho-Kus Brook and 10 feet at the spillway. He also noted that the dam seems to be in good repair and that any minor maintenance to it could be done at the time the water is diverted. Council members questioned the likelihood of getting enough grant moneys to make the project feasible. Kratz noted that previous discussions had centered around getting grants for 50 percent of the work at best. Kratz said that the town’s open space fund generates $75,000 a year, and expires in 2013. The county, he said, just reduced its fund from one cent to a quarter cent, so it is not likely to give out large grants. “And you’d still have to be comfortable with spending the $1.7 million you’d have to fund yourselves,” he said. “To put it in perspective, our entire capital budget is $800,000. If we allocated the funds towards this, we’d still have to do the projects we do yearly,” commented Councilman Don Sciolaro. Councilman Frank Palladino said he wanted the council to speak with the grants consultants directly to discuss the borough’s options. The council agreed. “Hear from them, and then based on that, decide if you can live with what they have to offer,” Kratz said. One of the consultants being considered would charge based on the grant amount received. The other would charge a flat fee up front regardless of the success of the application. Sign ordinance regulations (continued from page 9) The ordinance would prohibit multiple historic signs and the lighting of those signs. Once the council has approved the installation of historic signs, those signs would become the property of the borough. Ordinance 997 also includes regulations pertaining to temporary signs for non-profit public events. The terms of the ordinance state, “Temporary signs for borough nonprofit public events and/or charitable purposes, including exterior lighting for holiday or patriotic purposes, may be approved for a limited time not to exceed 30 days.” Currently, the council approves temporary signs for public and charitable purposes with the understanding that the signs may remain in place for a period of time not to exceed 30 days. If the proposed ordinance receives approval this month, those requesting such signs would, in the future, have to submit an application for a temporary sign to the zoning official. The proposed ordinance would allow the zoning official to waive the $100 administrative fee if sign requests are made in a timely manner. Temporary ground sign requests that are submitted within five days of installation and banner sign requests that are submitted within three weeks of installation would be considered timely. The ordinance also details where temporary signs may be placed. Specifically, temporary signs would have to be installed on approved borough sites, and an organization would not be permitted to install more than one sign on the same site at any time. A-frame signs and reflective lettering would be prohibited, as would any form of illumination. The ordinance would also prohibit temporary signs that are – in whole or in part -- moving, mobile, or revolving. The signs could not exceed six feet in height, and could not be larger than 24 square feet or smaller than three square feet. The proposed ordinance would prohibit the installation of a temporary sign within five feet of any street right-of-way or within 15 feet of the curb line. All signs would have to be removed when the event is over, or no later than 30 days after installation, whichever occurs first. Banner signs are defined as signs that are placed or installed on the borough’s streetscape light in the business district. Banners would be considered streetlight mounted temporary signs and would be limited to 42 inches in length and 18 inches in width. Banners would have to be made from cloth or synthetic material (not plastic). Printing would be allowed on one or both signs, but no more than one of each organization’s banner would be permitted on a pole at any given time. Reflective lettering, illumination, and sponsorship ads would not be permitted on any banners. Banners would have to be removed when the event is complete, or no later than 30 days after the banner installation, whichever occurs first. “The approving authority reserves the right to deny the application if the applicant cannot or will not conform to these guidelines,” the ordinance states. Any signs that interfere with traffic control signs or signals or adversely affect traffic safety would not be permitted. A public hearing on this ordinance has been scheduled for 8 p.m. on Sept. 27. The meeting will be held in HoHo-Kus Borough Hall.