Planning Board Minutes 6-24-10 Print E-mail

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

 
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 13 July 2010 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack