Page 10 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • January 18, 2012 Mahwah State amends budget schedule for township by Frank J. McMahon The 2012 budget for the Township of Mahwah will be presented to the council on or before Feb. 3, the new date set by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs for the submission of municipal budgets. Mahwah Township Administrator Brian Campion said the budget will comply with the state-mandated two percent cap on municipal tax levies. Campion explained that the administration has been working on a draft of the budget since September. While he did not want to provide any specific figures at this point, he said the numbers are constantly changing although the current gap in the budget is closing. Campion did point out, however, that the final tax levy could rise by more than two percent because pension and health care benefit increased costs are not included in the budget calculations, or if the township’s tax ratables decrease, which would cause the township’s tax rate to rise. Once the budget is delivered to the council, the document will then be reviewed, and possibly revised, by the council according to the amended schedule, which requires the council to introduce the budget by Feb. 29 and adopt it by April 20, about a month later than the original schedule. In April 2011, a divided Mahwah Council voted 5-2 to adopt a $34,727,326 budget for 2011 which represented a $134,030 increase over the township’s 2010 budget and an increase in the township’s municipal tax rate by 2.2 cents over the previous year’s tax rate of 35.9 cents, which included the library tax. That 2.2 cent municipal tax rate increase, including the library tax, raised the township’s property tax rate to 38.1 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, including the library tax, which was a 6.1 percent increase. That budget required $21,875,231 in property taxes, which represented an increase of $1,395,430 and the township’s final total tax rate resulted in a total tax rate of $1.58, including a school tax rate of 96.1 cents, a Bergen County tax rate of 22.5 cents, a 3.9 cent library tax, and a 34.2 cent municipal tax rate, and 1.3 cents in county and municipal open space taxes, which was a six cent increase in the township’s total tax rate. The six cent increase in the township’s total tax rate resulted in a property tax increase of $282 for the owner of a home with the township’s average assessed value of $470,000. At that same meeting in 2011, the council approved new two-year contracts for the township’s white and blue collar units of the United Public Service Employees Union and the Mahwah Policemen’s Benevolent Association by a 4-3 vote. Under those contracts, those employees who are at the top of their salary guide were to receive 2.5 percent increases on July 1, 2011 and on July 1, 2012. The 2012 budget is expected to be impacted by those contracts. When those contracts were approved, Council President John Roth, who voted against approving them, predicted that the cost of those contracts would be inconsistent with the township’s ability to stay within the two percent state-mandated cap. Councilman John Spiech also voted against the new contracts, saying he was opposed to using additional funds from the township’s surplus to cover the cost of those contracts, and Councilman Harry Williams said he felt the township conceded too much when these contracts were settled and also opposed using more money from surplus to cover the cost of the contracts. This week, the Mahwah Zoning Board of Adjustment will begin a new public hearing for a site plan to construct a single family home on a landlocked piece of property in an area off Midvale Mountain Road. The application by Philip and Julia Filippone seeks approval to develop their 3.39acre property located in a wooded area west of the Ramapo River and Ramapo Valley Road near the Oakland border. The application been on hold since Superior Court Judge Joseph S. Conte ruled in November 2010 that the public notice issued by the Filippones for the proposed development was not sufficient either in the number of nearby residents who were notified about the proposed development, or in its description of the proposal. Since then, the issue of the proper notification of all the property owners was resolved when Matthew Fox, a professional engineer hired by the Filippones, explained to the board during an August 2011 public hearing how he determined all the properties within 200 feet of the Filippone property, and all the properties within 200 feet of Midvale Mountain Road, which is not a public street. He confirmed that those property owners were sent notices. Robert Zisgen, an attorney for James Venusti, who owns the adjacent property and through whose property a driveway to the landlocked site would be constructed on a 25-foot wide easement that leads to Midvale Mountain Road, ultimately agreed that all those property owners who should have New hearing to begin been notified about the application have been properly notified. Zisgen raised another objection to the notice, however, claiming the notice was defective because it described the property as being approximately 4.09 acres when a previous court order prohibits the Filippones from stating that their property is anything but 3.39 acres. The attorney noted that the change in acreage revises the lot coverage requirement of the site. He also pointed out that the fact that the Filippone lot does not abut a public street as required by state law is not mentioned in the public notice. Matthew Fox, a professional engineer hired by the Filippones, explained to the board at the August 2011 hearing that the difference in lot area is related to a surveyor’s mistake when a previous subdivision was developed. He explained that, when the map for that subdivision was filed, the survey left the Filippone property short so it overlaps the Venusti property. John Cannito, an expert in the area of title insurance, then testified at length at the board’s Dec. 7 public hearing in an attempt to explain the origins of the Filippone and Venusti properties. At the end of that hearing, Zisgen withdrew his objection to the designation of the lot size of the Filippone property on the notice and agreed to proceed with the public hearing with the Filippone lot being described as 3.39 acres. The Filippones had originally sought a (continued on page 16)