|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
Minutes of June 24, 2010
ROLL CALL
Mr.
Maggio – present Mr.
Karkowsky - present
Mr.
Sandham – absent Ms. Nielson -
present
Mr.
Lipari - present Mr.
Lewis - present
Mr.
Hines - present Mr.
Canning - present
Mr. Visco - present Mr. Speciale (alt#1)
– present Mr. Tobias
(alt#2) - present
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF
COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION
New Senate News on filing of Minor
Subdivision - Gary Lewis: indicated
that there appears to be some statutory changes coming up that will require all
minor subdivisions be filed and recorded under the Map Filing Law vs. by deed. It appears to have some traction in the noting
he feels it is better to have a subdivision this recorded by map.
Paul Martino – Applied Landscaping Landscape
Company – River Road. Mr. Karkowsky asked if any inspections been
conducted on this site. What type of
equipment is being stored on this site? Has
the applicant provided a list of equipment and vehicles that on site
inspection, since he saw some trucks with containers on them and wondered if we
shouldn’t require a list to determinate what is being stored there in view of concerns
as to wetlands.
Conservation Seminar/Solar Energy - Mr. Tobias: he noted he went to Conservation technique
meeting, leaders in Somerset County,
and NJ is second to CA as to solar energy and interesting items presented as to
solar farms, mentioning Wm. Paterson campus area. With the federal incentives and state
incentives, you can save monies (not use electricity from grid and to pump back
into and energy sale credits). All of
these are five to seven year paybacks, but they have an evaluation process
which is free.
Gary
Lewis: the township has a Sustainable Montville
advisory committee, involving various members of township (14) and there was
just a discussion as to potential solar use, and appreciate considering
something in order to make formal pitches for long term finance committee and
are making progress.
(Mr. Maggio entered)
PLANNING
BUSINESS
None
Reports from Board Liaisons: (None)
a) Board of Adjustment – Gary Lewis
b)
Board of Health – Lawrence
Tobias
c)
Environmental Commission – Vic Canning
d)
Water & Sewer – Arthur Maggio
e) Historic Preservation Commission
– John Visco
f) DRC – Deb Nielson
g) Site Plan/Subdivision Committee –
Russ Lipari Chair, Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah
Nielson, & John Visco (alt)
j)
Economic Development Committee – Tony Speciale
k) Open Space Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ
Lipari, Deb Nielson & Jim Sandham
l) Master Plan/COAH 3rd
Round – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis
& John Visco (alt)
m) Cross Acceptance Committee – Lad
is Karkowsky, Russ Lipari
n) Highlands
Legislation Review Committee – Gary Lewis
o)
Appointment to Fire Department Districts – Russ
Lipari –Towaco; Tony Speciale
for Pine Brook, Art Maggio for Montville
WAIVERS
PMISC10-27 Pine Brook
Trattoria/Pizzeria –
28 Rt. 46 W – B: 176, L: 4.3 – 38 seats – 5 employees – 11am-10:30pm – 7 days –
signage in compliance with approved theme – Notice Acceptable
Mrs. White summarized there is parking variance on
site, but that the tenant has reduced their parking request down to the 38
seats. Notice is in order. No one from public present.
Present: Grace Pace
Parking
variances – notice
Ms. Pace
indicated she took over two units on the Bonefish strip mall which housed the computer
store & the pilates dance studio.
She indicated that it would be pizzas take out with some restaurant
seating area as shown on plan.
Board members
did not see a conflict since Bonefish did not open until 4PM, and so since this
does reflect a reduction in parking, and at night, the other uses are not open.
Mrs. White
indicated the owner of this strip mall is making application to amend
preliminary based on renovation of exterior and a request to open back lot to
Old Bloomfield, also considering sign theme changes.
Applicant
agreed to comply with all agency findings, as well as the sign theme, and use
letter as stipulated.
Motion made
by: John Visco
Seconded: Tony Speciale
Roll
call: unanimous
PMISC10-29 Atlantic
Health – 137 Main Rd. – B:
51, L: 33 – 1,170 s.f. medical office – 5 employees – 9am-8pm Mon-Sat – no
signage, no commercial vehicles, no outdoor storage (Keating)
Mrs. White indicated this is a satellite office
located with in the Professional medical building on Main Road. Board members voiced concerns over the
temporary sign still being used posted on a utility board noting how nice the
site turned out, and that this should be removed and that the permanent sign be
erected. Waiver approved subject to
removal of temporary sign and construction of all permanent signage.
The tenancy
approved subject to comply with all agency findings, use letter as stipulated
and no additional signage, noting that the owner will be notified of the need
to install permanent monument sign and remove temporary prior to occupancy for
tenant of Atlantic Health.
Motion
made by: Victor Canning
Seconded:
Larry Hines
Roll
call: Unanimous
PMISC10-31 Soloman Pavlou
Tae Kwon Do – 48 Rt.
46 – B: 176, L: 15 – Tae Kwon Do Studio (1,150 s.f.) – 1 employee – Mon-Sat
2pm-8pm – promotional testing done off site – 10-15 students per class -
signage in compliance with approved theme (O’Dowd)
The tenancy
was approved subject to compliance with use letter. Sign to be reviewed for consistency with sign
and ordinance requirements.
Motion made by: Art Maggio
Seconded by: Victor Canning
Roll call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
PMN09-12
SAIA, SAVATORE - 107 Changebridge Rd. – B: 123, L: 2 – minor
subdivision – applicant requested to be dismissed without prejudice
Motion made to dismiss without prejudice made by Larry Hines
Seconded by Russ Lipari
Roll call: Unanimous
MINUTES
Minutes
of June 10, 2010 – Ladis Karkowsky,
Victor Canning , John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ
Lipari, Jim Sandham,
Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Alt 1
Motion
made by: Russ
Lipari
Seconded
by: Larry Hines
Adopted
unanimously by roll call
INVOICES
Burgis
Associates – O/E for: $6,375.00 Master Plan; $3,341.25 Masterplan; Trust for:
$135, $202.50
Omland
Engineering – Trust for: $1,957.50 (Pinto), $337.50, $67.50
Motion
made by: Larry Hines
Seconded
by: Russ
Lipari
Roll
call: Unanimously
LOI/DEP
NOTIFICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
PSPP/FC09-09 Pinto
Management Group – 147 Changebridge Rd.
– B: 131, L: 18 – Prel/Final Site Plan – variances - Carried from 4-22-10 and
5/27/10 with notice Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Victor Canning , Deb Nielson, John Visco,
Gary Lewis, Art Maggio , Russ Lipari, Jim Sandham,
Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines ACT BY: 8/12/10
Mrs.
White summarized revisions submitted to the Board, reports of professionals and
hiring of traffic and planner professional.
Professionals
of Board were sworn.
Steven
Schepis, Esq.
Testified: board asked for a traffic engineer and a
planner, and since that, this request was filled. Joseph Staiger, Traffic engineering, and Mia
Petrou, Kenneth Ochab Associates
He
summarized changes since last appearance, minor modifications to the
architectural plans to bring signs into compliance with zoning ordinance. Mr. Lee, architect not present, but his associate
is present:
Jerome
Even, Architect – sworn
Stated
credentials
Reviewed
revised architectural plans: noted two
buildings on site and building A had a sign.
Drawing A1 previously submitted to the Board – sign was in upper left
hand side, noting changes on building in that sign is now relocated over
personnel door, so will be a 3x5 sign (tenant sign). Added box lights on this elevation. Building B has three sets of doors. Revisions further reviewed.
Build
out will be per tenant, and this will be just a shell in response to Mr.
Maggio’s question. Depending on tenant,
there will have to be a toilet room and must accommodate ADA.
Mr.
Tobias: where is the additional
parking? This issue was deferred to
engineer.
Roof
appurtenances cannot be higher than ten feet off roof and will be adhered to in
response to Mr. Burgis concern.
John
Pinto – sworn
Russ Lipari:
before going forward, has the County comments been received? Mr. Schepis indicated they did, and they
wanted copies of utility companies which require a copy of the resolution
approval from the township. They will
not give something in writing until that time.
Have to satisfy County, and wants assurances that Mr. Carroll will
require written approval from the utility companies. The other issue is the Maintenance Manual and
is still under DEP and will meet County approval. The memo will be submitted when all of their
conditions are complied with. DEP is
still an open permit.
Mr.
Schepis: as to questions raised by board
members.
Exhibit marked A6 – Pinto industrial
park informational package –
marked into exhibit. Mr. Karkowsky
reminded Mr. Schepis exhibits being presented in advance of meeting night. Mr. Schepis agreed, noting that he is
submitting this as a document.
Mr.
Pinto reviewed the informational package submitted. On third page, diesel tank will be 5,000
gallons above ground double wall, and it is a two hour fire rated tank and is
pressure system, and this makes for shut down in case of emergency. Will be fenced in on plan, and will have a
card system, and no one can take diesel out without card entry. This is used for diesel fillings for
trucks.
As
to cleaning of trucks and empty containers:
Mr. Pinto indicated they use a company which specializes in this
business. They come to your location. They are in the business of water recovery
and they make you mulch and block off your storm drainage, and they have
vacuums which take water. They have DEP
permits, and this company is used for trucking and containers cleaning.
Mr.
Omland: aware of this type of operation
but what assurances does the township have that the contract which is month to
month isn’t cancelled and you begin cleaning yourself.
As
to operation manual, applicant must present proof that the stormwater
management basins have been inspected maintained and cleaned and that as
another obligation in the DA, that the applicant provide proofs for washing,
and suggest it may be more than month to month contract. Mr. Pinto:
don’t see an issue with getting a longer contract to satisfy that
condition.
Gary Lewis:
asked that someone who would do an operation like this be present to
testify on this. Voiced concerns: Some numbers of these dumpsters are taken
from construction sites, and can’t imagine washing dumpsters from construction
sites (acids, glue, paints, etc.) is the same as washing a truck. Have a difficult time understanding this and
how is it done. Understand fleet truck,
but this is not same as washing a container, which you have no control over as
to contents.
Mr.
Pinto: Can give literature on it. Have had lines break, and are licensed to
clean up anything. Discussion ensued on
control of what is put into a dumpster.
These dumpsters are not coming back to the site; these containers are
not dumped on site. Mr. Karkowsky
indicated he is concerned about solids/waste/and these will be dumped into the
ground. Mr. Lewis continued that this
must be on a self-contained concrete basins and not relying on booms, etc. It works well on vans, but extremely
unconvinced that this operation is a safe one and that it has suitable controls
on what we have before us now.
Mr.
Lipari voiced concerns about what is going to happen and the type of business
that you are in, and if you are going to have a security system and tapes
running to see system, and it may be worthwhile to consider that these tapes
would be able to be reviewed to make sure the operation would be adhered to. Think about this as a condition. Mr. Pinto:
if the township wants access, and applicant will keep a library of the
tapes on site. Applicant will consider.
Mr.
Karkowsky: the job description indicates
that these containers are done as an ‘on call’ wash. These are not on a regular schedule. The trucks are on the regular basis. Mr. Pinto:
a lot of containers stay on site all the time. Mr. Karkowsky: when the containers come back to the yard,
they will be washed. When containers
come back to the site, how long are these dirty containers going to stay on
site. Won’t they go back into the
ground? Mr. Schepis indicated Mr. Walker
will testify to that. Discussion ensued.
Mr.
Hines: who makes decision on
cleaning? Mr. Pinto: site foreman.
When they come in, he makes decision.
Mr.
Pinto: do a lot of office buildings, and
all of this is office waste and there is nothing that is of concern. The construction debris is small part of the
business.
Art
Maggio: how many containers?
Mr.
Pinto: about 65 containers. Storage is not much in the yard, but will have
a couple of them in yard.
How
many containers are stored on site? Mr.
Omland: what is of concern is the
possibility of follow up.
26
containers will be stored on this site at one time.
Mr.
Visco: concerns are that containers
would be cleaned on this site.
Gary Lewis:
does fleet wash provide container cleaning for fellow haulers? Unknown answered Mr. Pinto.
Ladis Karkowsky:
indicated he is unaware of any containers that nare cleaned out before
they go to a job site.
Russ Lipari:
how much wash water does it take to clean a container?
Mr.
Pinto: not known.
Russ Lipari:
is the operation similar to a Gaeta
hauler? Mr. Pinto: Gaeta is a
different operation, in Paterson,
is a transfer station, and a much larger fleet, and not similar at all.
Ladis Karkowsky:
there are no intentions of setting up a transfer station at this
location. Mr. Pinto: acknowledged that this will not happen that
way.
Deb Nielson: wants a stipulation very clear that
there is an agreement and testimony that clearly reflects this will never be a
transfer station. Mr. Pinto stipulated that
there will be no importation of trash in this facility, and Mr. Schepis
indicated it would be general office trash.
Concerns voiced as to the proposed use being a permitted use in this
zone. No proofs established.
From
past operations at 143 River Road,
this was an issue, and Ms. Nielson indicated that this would be the board’s
concerns.
Mr.
Pinto was advised that each tenant must come into the Planning Board, and his
operation for Building A is part of this hearing, but any other tenant must
come into the Planning Board with approval.
Mr. Schepis concurred.
Larry
Hines: on Building A, do you plan to
lease any of this building. Mr. Pinto
indicated for his use only. Front
building would be investment property.
Mark
Walker, previously sworn
Mr.
Walker discussed Building B which was revised by applicant. Relocated dumpsters, removed loading spaces,
provided 36 parking spaces, nine more than required. He continued to review the revisions made to
the site, mentioned 6 additional spaces that would also be land banked, and the
only time these 36 deferred land banked spaces would be constructed if there
was a significant change of use.
Discussed
the fuel tank and its location, and Mr. Schepis indicated it was relocated
above ground vs. below ground.
As
to concerns with potential contamination, this was taken into consideration and
modified plans. As to fleet wash, they
seal all of the inlets and they clean the surface with done, and all washing of
trucks and containers are taken with them.
What was also done was to put in an oil water separator. The fleet wash company will come every two
weeks and pump the oil water separator and remove residue from tanks. There is a storage area and general parking
area and fuel storage tank and storm drain, and in between will be an oil water
separator. He continued to explain
protection on measures installed.
Incorporating
this maintenance into the stormwater management manual is a good way to go, and
they will be getting another DEP permit that is another level of
oversight. There is another manual that
must be submitted on a yearly basis.
This should all be contained within manuals as part of the official
record.
The
Montville Township engineer is required to be
field with the township engineer.
Mr.
Omland summarized that an annual report of all of the operations would be all
encompassing for all of the issues that would be brought up. This should be an all encompassing
report.
Mr.
Omland: it has been said the area of
concrete curbing/paving that this area will capture water? How is this done? What of areas for water penetration. Mr. Walker:
it allows water to run off thru storm drain. Mr. Walker indicating he is not causing any
water tight treatments.
Grading
plan should be reviewed, and on concrete there is tight control of grade, and
if looking at contour, it pitches towards openings and you need a trench drain
or change contours. There is an
opportunity of upper end of parking lot to drain out. Mr. Walker will address.
Parking
lot area also captures water. Parking
lot is also concrete.
There
is no need to capture water at the larger parking lot. But from economic part of fleet wash, can’t
say which area they will select, but they will select an area that is
contained. This is a control instrument
that we need to know. We want the area
capsulated where there is washing.
Applicant will agree.
Future
parking as described reviewed (on far side of driveway). Why wouldn’t this be flipped inside so people
wouldn’t have to cross driveway? Mr.
Walker indicated originally it was thought it would be tractor trailers along
paved area near building, so put parking on the opposite of access drive
knowing there is limited traffic with Mr. Pinto’s operation. Now that there is a more focused plan for
building B, provided parking spaces on other side of aisle, those reserved
spaces won’t be building, but if need to have tenants and tractor trailers an
need turning movement, may need to come back for request to use these parking
spaces. Discussion ensued on moving
access drives around. Mr. Walker
indicated this can be revisited at that time this occurs.
River
Road is a non curbed area, and applicant asked for waiver based on review of
the existing area. There is no widening
of River Road
proposed. Is there an updated summary
and waivers on this site?
Mrs.
White asked for clarification of filing:
is it a phased approval, and/or preliminary final. Mrs. White indicated that there is a concern
as it relates to plans that are not engineered.
Mr. Omland elaborated on some of the concerns. Mr. Schepis indicated this site will be
considered as industrial only. He indicated
he is seeking preliminary and final on both buildings but phased it to reflect
building of Pinto office building/structure as first stage.
Mr.
Walker asked for confirmation that the deferred parking spaces are included in
storm water. He confirmed.
Mr.
Burgis: as you come in with new users,
you may wind up with nine users vs. 13 so what happens if there were changes
with tenants; the landscaping plan would have to be addressed. Mr. Walker
indicated that at that time, the building will be built this way, and see no
change in the landscaping. If there are
fewer tenants, same type of landscaping improvements will be required.
As
to outdoor storage area, fencing and landscaping is required. It must be provided. Applicant will comply. Mr. Walker: landscaping will be as per what the utility
companies want? They allow fencing, but
require gates (16’ opening) and details will be provided. This will be part of the process when signing
off on plans.
Gary Lewis:
have no idea how deep sanitary depth is, and would ne4ed to have this
discussion per applicant with Mr. Mazzaccaro.
It is an easement and that this is a permanent structure that you are
proposing on top of this easement. When
going thru this, tried to keep designs where there were no utilities. Concerns voiced.
Not
sure where heavy equipment or trucks are parked but concrete will spread load
better.
Mr.
Omland wanted to know how you can protect this area if water and sewer isn’t
out there. There will be a requirement
for inspections by both engineering and water and sewer. It is a pressure vessel and its condition is
measured by pressure worthiness, and applicant not knowing depth is at some
risk when some construction begins. But
there are crossings in this area or utility lines will need to be changed.
This
should be s specific item in the DA that must be spelled out.
Chair
opened meeting to public. Hearing none,
closed
Joseph
Staiger, sworn and credentials accepted
Prepared
an independent traffic report and submitted this report June 10, 2010. Analyzed existing conditions and did traffic
counts at this site. There is an office
building located across River Road
about 90’ offset, which is one of the concerns as to having this
interaction. Concentrated at this
location both east and west bounds as well as office building, noting there are
two access drives on this office building.
Reviewed traffic report taken.
Also took county counts at the intersection of River Road and Changebridge, and found
they were higher in 2008 showing more two way traffic than 2010 counts, so used
Morris County counts. Orientation of traffic was reversed with more
traffic going westbound with more east in evening. He found heavier eastbound and at night found
it going away from Changebridge Road. Mr. Staiger took the counts again and found
their data was right vs. the County counts.
Since the June 10th, he did do an analysis of traffic counts
in response to June 22, 2010 Omland report.
What was found that the intersection of the driveway and existing
driveway operated in a good level of service?
He explained what ranges of service are:
levels of delay in vehicular movement.
He
took data from Mr. Pinto indicating his trucks come into at 6:30AM before peak
hour of roadway traffic which is closer to 7:30AM. On return back, they are in yard around
4:30. Took a conservative approach to
this, and there might be a successor, so what was used was a flex type building
which would have 15% office and remaining warehouse, which would generate four
vehicles. Applicant is expecting 0
trips. In his analysis he indicated 4
vehicles during peak hour.
The
larger building, B, used a flex building for this, and used trip generation for
business parks (mixes of uses). Flex
building might change, and from June 22nd review letter, that the
use of land use and trip generation was acceptable. What is going to projected from this site in
the morning peak hour, 40 vehicles in, with 7 out. That would be peak hour at 7:30AM to 8:30AM
Peak
night hours ten in with 34 out, and impose this on higher volumes that were
determined from county, and have levels of service of A and C.
He
indicated he looked at existing driveways and during AM peak hours; there were 47
movements in and 4 out. In the evening,
there were 6 movements in and 41 out. He
analyzed this driveway from A-C for service.
In
Omland letter, there was concern of interaction of two driveways of offset. Mr. Schepis:
no ordinance exists.
Mr.
Staiger reviewed his findings as to the interaction of offsets, and testified
there will be no negative impact.
Trip
generation discussed and what if they are under-estimated, what could
happen? Mr. Staiger indicated that in
response to this concern, did a sensitivity analysis, doubling analysis, and
ran them in at 80 in with 14 out, and went even higher, and calling 50% or 80
trucks, and still came up with level service A.
If you go to four times, it changes to a D service. Did this in the afternoon, and reviewed this
data, and still got a good level of service.
He testified that even if he is off by a significant amount, they will
operate effectively.
Questions
asked as to on site parking to Mr. Staiger.
Is the parking adequate on site?
Mr. Staigar indicated affirmative indicating that this will be a low
parking need site, and with the banked parking as a safety factor, if there is
sufficient parking.
Is
the roadway configuration on this site sufficient for safe access, turning
movements, etc? Mr. Staiger indicated
there are gentle turns, sight visible is clear and there is no problem on this
site.
In
the vent the Board acts favorably on this, is there any negative impact on
adjoining roadways. Mr. Staiger believes
that the applicant’s responsibility for safe access, capacity analysis, trip
generation analysis, clearly indicates it does.
He mentioned River Road
is a straight road for 40mph is more than adequate for sight distance, and will
operate safely.
Mr.
Omland: analysis of office traffic was
physically counted? Yes per Mr.
Staiger. Not sure if it is fully
occupied. But Mr. Staiger indicated that
even if they were doubled from office park, no impact would be seen.
Site
circulation discussed. Sheet No. 6 as to
truck circulation, will a truck be able to circulate without interfering with traffic. There will be no impact per Mr. Staiger.
Comment
12 on letter dated June 23rd will offer that the applicant provide a
design for on site safety features that would come from the design offices of
the applicant’s professional. Applicant
will provide safety related features in site also.
As
to building A, Mr. Pinto supplied info, but took this further and used
office/warehouse resulting in four trips.
Sensitivity analysis was comforting but absent that, providing data for
a specific use, justified by traffic studies.
Mr.
Omland: if this site is not designed
out, this is a conceptual plan and is not an engineered plan, since parking on
the other side of the road, and this parking is not to be, not a problem.
Mr.
Burgis: deferred to Mr. Omland.
No
comments from Planning Board members
No
public comments
Planner
sworn – Mia Petrou, Kenneth Ochab
Associations - credentials given and
accepted
Reviewed
the plan and associated materials and reviewed the township ordinances and
master plan, and been to the site and the surrounding area, and character of
the neighborhood.
Photograph
exhibit marked in as A7 – first set of photos - smaller copies submitted to
board members.
A7 marked in as exhibit and is called
existing conditions on the site –
A thru D locations discussed.
A8
marked in as exhibit called sign photographs – reflects existing uses in the
area. A thru D locations discussed. This is in conjunction with relief of sign
variances for this site.
Aerial photograph marked in as A 9 – exhibit reviewed
Four
sign variances:
The
first is the maximum number of signs where two signs are proposed – the wall
signs on building and freestanding monument.
It is the River Road
monument sign that is the requested variance.
Only
wall signs are permitted, but another variance for board granting variance for
second sign and freestanding and as it relates to site. In looking at variance criteria, these are C
variances: C l where variance is due to
practical difficulties to property in question because of property
conditions. Under the C1 criteria,
property is constrained due to several factors, wetlands on site, narrow
available of building and irregular shape of lot and multiple utilities. Because of this, nearest sign is 270’ back. Building can’t be located closer to
road. It is a heavily wooded site. A freestanding monument is needed to
adequately identify site and wall sign is for tenant. Under C2, it will promote public safety for
showing entrance.
Adjoining
contractor’s yard, it is setback deep into the lot. This means the building won’t be on road.
Height
of four signs on building. Criteria for
granting these variances: it is to
provide for identification of site and usage and must be in sufficient size and
be able to see it: 3’ high signs for A
and 2’ for building B. She noted Building
A is at the furthest side and is offset from driveway terminus so it needs to
be larger to be seen.
Mounting
sign exceeds 8’ because it is above entrance, and this provides best method of
finding tenant. Other location would
cause confusion, irregular sign placement on site, and this provides
consistency in signage.
Two
buildings on site, and although two buildings are allowed for one owner, one in
this case is spec. She indicated there
are practical problems since this is all that is available on site. What can you do for just one building, but to
do this would require a subdivision, and this would be difficult to achieve. The reason for this layout for improvement of
the property, you have a single owner of the development and provides effective
management of buildings. C2 criteria
offers compact and only 2% building coverage over entire site, particularly you
are surrounded by a lot of open area due to compact development.
Variance
for separation of outdoor storage and residential zoned property requiring 100’
separation reviewed. Applicant is
providing 24.3’ and this is only for the outdoor storage area, and proposal on
this site is the only fully developable area on this site. In looking at the surrounding area, to the
residential zone, that is open space owned by the township and there is not
going to be building in this area, and looking at intent of residential buffers
is to keep industrial uses/noise/smell/screening and in this case although you
are adjacent to R20 zone it is open space and won’t be developed as residential
uses and has similar features of wetlands particularly to the southeast which
would precludes any active recreational use in this area.
Planner
indicated there would be no impact to zoning in this area and the users are
compatible in this area, and ordinance permits these activities. Property is in same ownership. Development is far away from roadway and
would not be apparent. On adjacent site,
commercial vehicles can be stored in this area, and residents can store their
vehicles and equipment in industrial location as a possibility. In looking at residential buffer, believe
that this is satisfied. In terms of
signage, looking at the balance and intent of zone plan is to provide balance,
identification and the signs being requested will not result in clutter or
visual impact, and due to location of structures it is buffered from travelling
public.
Gary Lewis:
took out permitted use zoning schedules on this site, and in I1B, which
one would this use come close to. Mr.
Schepis: he indicated that garages were
listed as a permitted use, and that this garage as accessory is permitted
use. Concerns voiced: Office is being operated on site but it is
obvious the storage use is larger.
Mr.
Burgis: had this discussion but it is
not in writing. Mr. Lewis: concerned about what is accessory and what is
principal use? At what point does
something become principal vs. accessory.
In looking at this, the particular operation before use, it is his
intent to operate the office as his business.
Mr.
Burgis: asked for confirmation as to
number of signs per use. Ms. Petrou: Each
individual occupant will have one wall sign, so reference to the second sign is
the freestanding sign. Will freestanding
sign locate each tenant? No, it will
just reflect name of industrial park. The
outside sign will not show all tenants.
With
respect to front building, why are we asking for variance of wall signs when
you don’t know users and their sign needs?
You can have a sign plan in place, and it may be that one tenant takes
one sign. The sign of the sign will
remain the same. Why not meet 1 1/2 ‘height
requirement? Discussion ensued as to
future signage. He will agree to comply
with reduction of sign 10’6” vs. 11’.
Mr. Burgis indicated it isn’t critical to have the variance since he
believes there is sufficient distance in aisle and you will be able to read
it. If they are coming in with a
particular user, fine, but right now you are not asking for a sign for a
proposed tenant. Applicant will comply
with code.
Stan
Omland: On freestanding sign, location,
will it be safe? It is set back 14’ off
of River Road
and has no problem.
Gary Lewis:
discussed this early on and because the ordinance doesn’t define it
clearly, and although warehousing is permitted, how do with deal with the
wording when it says ‘other articles’
Mr.
Schepis: Warehouse is defined as
equipment/materials are stored/articles are stored and looking at storage
equipment, this is normal and incidental to principal use which is something
that occurs off site.
Ms.
Petrou: continued that the definition of
accessory use in code is use incidental to main use of primary use. His main use is office for his business, and
warehouse is being stored as part of this storage area and those containers are
not used on site but are used off site.
He is administering those operations from this building which is primary
office use.
Mr.
Lewis asked for clarification as to footnote 10 under zoning, which footnote
indicates warehousing is limited to dry goods in this zone only. Footnote 10 is referring to other zones. This is dry goods, products or other articles;
one can question whether products are linked to dry goods. Discussion continued. This is a garage, and it is not a warehousing
use.
Victor
Canning: he is going to be doing
maintenance on this, and it is part of a garage use, and this is not
warehousing use.
Under
permitted accessory uses in I1B zone, it specifically permits parking garage,
so if you use this under that definition, what is proposed here is a hauling
business: the office business is primary
and parking is accessory.
Discussion
continued on the use as it relates to accessory/principal uses. Parking is subordinate to the business, and
the business is vehicles parked in the garage, which are being said to be subordinate
to office use.
Michael
Carroll: when you get involved in a
debate, this is not the place to have interpretation of the ordinance; this
decision making is at the Board of Adjustment.
If this board can’t make this determination, then proceed with the
case. If they can’t see the jurisdiction
of whether it is or isn’t a permitted use, go to the Board of Adjustment for a
decision.
Ladis Karkowsky:
feels the garage is principal use.
Trucks are accessory to the business.
Mr. Burgis: if you go back to
original testimony, this should give you the answer as to what they are doing
here.
Mr.
Schepis argued that this is a permitted use based on internal storage of
vehicles, arguing that garage is accessory to hauling business and is
permitted.
Is
it a garage and/or warehouse? It is Mr.
Schepis position that it is storage. Mr.
Burgis was asked to prepare a memo of this.
Mrs. White will give Mr. Burgis copy of applicant’s testimony as to what
his operation consists of.
Ladis Karkowsky:
right now this should be considered before a motion is made. Mrs. White will give minutes of testimony
offered by Mr. Pinto.
Michael
Carroll: we are interpreting the use and
not the ordinance and you must consider this as whether or not it is a
permitted use or not.
Mr.
Karkowsky summarized that you have to rely on the professional and what he
wants to present to his board. Board
members expressed concern over what the applicant’s use is and whether or not
this activity and how it meets definition of a warehouse. Want to hear how this relates to the activity
as being permitted.
Motion
made by carry with notice to July 8th Larry Hines, seconded by Art
Maggio – Roll call: Unanimous Roll call:
Ladis Karkowsky, Victor
Canning , Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis,
Art Maggio , Russ Lipari, Larry
Hines, Tony Speciale, Larry Tobias (Jim Sandham must certify to electronic recording for
next meeting)
DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS,
FOLLOWING CASE CARRIED WITH NOTICE TO THE JULY 8, 2010 AGENDA
Motion
made by: Larry Hines
Seconded:
Russ Lipari
Roll
call: Unanimous
PSPP/FC10-07 RAILS STEAKHOUSE - 8 & 10 Whitehall Road – B: 96, L: 3
& 4 - Site Plan/Variances for development of retail/apartments /restaurant
site – Carried w/notice from 6/10/10 – Eligible: Ladis
Karkowsky, Victor Canning, John
Visco, Gary Lewis,
Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Jim Sandham, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Alt, Larry
Tobias, Alt #2: Deb
Nielson must certify to 6/10/10 meeting
ACT BY: 10/8/10
Moved
to closed session on personnel matters by Deb Nielson
Seconded
by Larry Hines
Roll
call: unanimous.
Upon
return, meeting adjourned unanimously moved by Larry Hines, seconded by Art
Maggio.
Respectfully
submitted,
Linda
M. White
|
