TOWNSHIP OF MONROE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING
November 25, 2014
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairwoman Carol Damiani who
led the Salute to the Flag.
Chair Damiani read the Sunshine Law as follows: In accordance with the Open Public
Meetings Act, it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes that
adequate notice of the meeting has been provided by the following: Posted on the
bulletin board of the Office of the Township Clerk, Municipal Complex and remains on
file at that location; Communicated to the Home News and Tribune on January 3, 2014
and the Cranbury Press on January 3, 2014; filed on January 3, 2014 with the Deputy
Municipal Clerk at the Monroe Township Offices and remains on file for public
inspections, and sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vincent LaFata, Joseph Gurney, Dhaval Patel, Mark Klein,
Henry Sloan, Stanley Teller, Jennifer Hluchy, Louis Masters, and Chair Carol Damiani.
Also present for the board were Mark Rasimowicz Engineer, Karl Kemm Attorney and
Mark Remsa Planner.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Marino Lupo
Damiani: in the absence of Mr. Lupo, Stanley Teller will be a full voting member this
evening.
MINUTES
A motion to approve the minutes from the September meeting was made by Mr. Klein,
seconded by Mr. Patel and approved by all board members present.
A motion to approve the minutes from the October 28, 2014 meeting was made by Mr.
Patel, seconded by Mr. Gurney and approved by all board members present.
Damiani: while we are waiting for our attorney Mr. Kemm we will jump ahead to our
Memorialization's.
BA-5091-14 (Lucille DiPasquale) is approved by all board members present.
BA - 5094 - 14
PAUL AND BETH PICCONE
The applicant is represented by Salvatore Alfieri. Just to refresh the board, we
previously received use variance approval under a bifurcated application for the
shooting range/gun range. We are here tonight for preliminary and final site plan
approval. I have with me Brian Murphy, our engineer and I request that he be sworn and
qualified.
Brian Murphy is sworn in and accepted as an expert witness in the field of engineering.
Kemm: housekeeping is in order.
Murphy: identifying and exhibit which is an aerial photo marked a 11/25/14 which is
generally wooded with a stream that runs along the western property line to the far West
there is a shopping center and route 527. Union Hill road runs along the south boundary
and to the north we have single family home. To the northeast we have more vacant
land and wetlands. The adjacent property will be a contractor’s yard which is partially
vacant now. There are barns and vacant land across the street. On this property there
are remnants of two homes that were destroyed by fire and remnants of a chicken coop.
If this application is approved and the project is developed all of those structures will be
demolished and removed. The property is located in three zones-the majority of the
property is located in the neighborhood commercial zone, we are also in the flood
hazard zone. There is a slight portion to the northwest corner that is clipped by the
airport overlay zone. There is no development proposed in that area of the site. Exhibit
A-2 is a colored rendering and we are proposing a gun club. Basically a firing range
which we received a use variance previously from this board. We have a basement that
is about 9800 ft.². There will be longer-range shooting there. Upstairs is an additional
9800+ square feet which will also have classroom, gun sales and shooting range. If this
is approved we will have to file something with DOT because of the airport overlay
zone.
Patel: can you identify on that exhibit where the wetlands are?
Murphy: using the exhibit shows what Mr. Patel is looking for.
Patel: with the majority of the property being wet you're still proposing a basement?
Murphy: we have some grade changes on the property so there should be no problem
with the basement. Parking is basically accessed off of Union Hill road along the
eastern property line and on either side of the building. Parking is in compliance as far
as the number of stalls that will be provided. We will have an individual septic system in
the front yard that will service the property. We will get approval by the health
department as well. We applied to DEP for the buffer transition wetlands and that is
pretty much the bulk of the testimony for what is going here.
Klein: are there any plans of putting a fence around it?
Murphy: no, around what?
Klein: around the building
Murphy: no, there is a stone drive which was discussed previously that the fire
department has discussed to not have birmed, but no we are not proposing a fence.
Damiani: what are you using the basement floor?
Alfieri: we are proposing 15 shooting lanes on each floor. The gun sales would be on
the first floor not in the basement area. The basement would be key-carded so only
members would have access to the basement area.
Murphy: with regard to the drainage, under the parking lot we have an underground
recharge system so we have a system that will treat the water and recharge it into the
ground in this area. This area is higher than the rest of the property and the soil borings
and permeability testing shows that this will work. With regard to the proposed
landscaping and buffering-along the west side we have the wetland so we're not going
to be touching any of that. We are going to have some landscaping along the front on
either side of the driveway and some additional decorative landscaping along the south
side of the parking area. You may be able to see from where you're sitting; the green
area shows where the septic field is going we cannot have any trees within 10 feet of
that. We originally had shown landscaping along the frontage with street trees, but there
are existing trees there and it was requested that we leave them. With regard to the
driveway location, there is a clump of trees just on the west side of where our proposed
driveway is. The Arborist has requested that we shift the driveway. That creates 2
problems. One, if we shift the driveway we are going to be losing parking stalls. Also
we are still within 10 feet of where our proposed septic tank is going. Either way those
trees are going to have to go. The applicant will be willing to work with the arborist to
plant supplement trees. We have several variances required as a result of this
application. We are providing a trash enclosure in the front parking area in the
southwest corner. We looked at different locations but this is the one that made the
most sense. Mr. Remsa has asked that we provide different landscaping and we will
provide that. It will also have 6 foot vinyl fence around it so you will not see it, but
technically it is a variance. Also, parking in the front yard-within the front yard setback.
We have 5 parking spaces proposed there so we are asking for a variance for that. The
minimum landscape buffer along the street-60 foot is required and we have 12.
Minimum driveway width 35 feet is the maximum permitted and proposed is 24 so that
is a variance. Loading area, we are not providing one so that is a variance. All of these
variances are essentially created by the hardship of the particular shape of the site.
Also, the physical constraints of the wetlands. The usable area is very narrow in shape
so we would ask that the variances be granted for exactly those reasons. The benefits
will outweigh any detriment for sure. These variances can be granted without any
detriment to the zoning and master plan. It will be no impact to the public good. We are
also looking for a diminished exception for the storm water. We would ask for a waiver
from providing the road widening. We will provide the sidewalks and the curbs but not
the road widening.
Alfieri: the parking lot itself, how will it be lit?
Murphy: basically we have lighting around the parking lot and under the canopy of the
building so that insures it will always be lit. It is all down lighting underneath the
canopies so we will not have spillage.
Alfieri: the planner’s report gives a good summary of the conditions of the use variance
approval as it relates to the operational aspects of the application. There are some
technical comments and can you address them?
Murphy: page 3 item 6C: providing a row of evergreens. Quite honestly we just don't
have a whole lot of room left to provide them. With a fence, a guardrail and a retaining
wall. We would ask for a waiver on that. Other than that I have no issues with any
comments in his letter.
Alfieri: with regard to the engineer's review letter?
Murphy: I have no problem with all of the comments except for: page 3 item J we would
request that we be able to show all of that prior to construction of the retaining wall. Item
L - there is a question regarding the size of the training room. When they looked at it
closer they realized that they were a little oversized for the training room and thought
480 ft.² would be sufficient. Item E-the resolution of approval requires a berm be
constructed across the existing driveway to the west. The berm shall be landscaped.
Rasimowicz: I'm talking about the existing driveway to the West.
Murphy: oh this driveway. We are seeking not to have the berm there; the fire
department would like to have a fence.
Rasimowicz: is the fire department aware that you are demolishing those homes?
Murphy: we submitted the plans to them. If the fire department in the town would rather
have a berm we have no problem with that. Those are the only issues we have with the
letter.
Alfieri: we do have an architectural rendering that we can mark. We do have a reduced
version that has been handed out to the board and the architect is here if anybody has a
question. Additionally we have the owner and operator here if there any questions. That
concludes our direct presentation.
Rasimowicz: with regard to my item 4 - you are seeking relief on the buffers. You have
agreed to provide supplemental plantings along the front?
Murphy yes
Rasimowicz: with regard to item 5B - with regard to Union Hill road and the road
widening. It’s the first I'm hearing that you are seeking a waiver to provide the road
widening. At this time I do not recommend that waiver. The master plan requires a 20
foot half width and that's what I believe we should require out there. It is something I can
take a look at with the item that you raised about the existing bridge, but I would seek to
have those improvements put in. The improvements have been installed from Old
Bridge Englishtown Road to the bridge and we would like to see these improvements
through Monroe and connect to Manalapan. With regard to the temporary easement or
the permission from the adjacent property owner: I would ask for more details on the
retaining wall and all of the improvements going on. There are a lot of improvements
going on over there and I need details to be provided. Please clarify the details of
everything going in there. Sticking with that area, the lighting levels need to be detailed
on the plan at the property line. The environmental impact statement you requested a
waiver on; I do not have a problem with but I would defer that over to the environmental
commission. They have agreed to meet the remaining items.
Remsa: I listen to the testimony regarding the variances and I agree with Mr. Murphy.
Essentially most of these variances are associated with the fact that even though it is a
very large piece of property it is highly constrained by the wetlands and there is very
little that can be developed. Also, I have no objection to the placing of the fence on the
property line. So I would withdraw the comment. I do have one comment on the
architectural renderings that were provided. On the façade, there is a façade sign and
the plans that we have don't show any signage. I would suggest you not to approve any
signs tonight and that when they go forward that façade sign will have to comply with
the ordinance. That is the extent of my comments and they have agreed to all of my
cleanup points that I made.
Klein: first of all, within the building where the ranges are, will there be sufficient exhaust
fans to get rid of the exhaust from the ammo?
Murphy: yes
Klein: the bullet remnants?
Murphy: that is regulated by the state. There is no outside storage of anything
whatsoever.
Klein: how do you ensure security for the stores; weapons and ammunition? Will the
range be open to nonmembers or only members?
Alfieri: only members.
Gurney: what about food?
Alfieri: only vending machines.
Gurney: my big question is ammunition. The last person that was here-there was a big
factor about selling ammunition. Your applicant has permission to sell guns and
ammunition, is that correct?
Alfieri: correct
Gurney: I need a clarification. If we do have two gun ranges now, will they both be able
to do the same thing?
Kemm: the no answer is that certain uses granted under the use variance are different
for this application versus the other application. We did not allow the sale of ammo on
the other application but we do on this application. There is a level of regulation from the
state and federal law with regard to the selling of ammunition. The differences in the
applications have to do with the presentations at the time of each.
Patel: regarding the wetlands; based on the exhibit seems the building is encroaching
maybe 25 feet from it?
Murphy: we will be buffer averaging and we have that application into the NJ DEP.
Patel: So any approval we give will be contingent upon the DEP?
Murphy: yes
Patel: regarding fencing; I believe the applicant had testified originally for the use that
there were issues with kids coming onto the property. We are no longer concerned with
kids coming onto the property?
Murphy: there are no homes anymore on the property to lure the kids there. The other
difference will be that there will be people and activity on the property now.
Patel: would you feel safer with a 6 foot fence around the property?
Murphy: we will have cameras on the buildings themselves in and have people at the
property. You can't keep people of the property 24 hours a day.
Klein: I'm not talking about fencing in the whole property, talking about fencing the area
with the building of the parking lot and I would suggest and 8 foot fence. I would be
more comfortable with the chain link fence around your basic improved property, not the
whole property.
Alfieri: Mr. Murphy: can that be done?
Murphy: sure, it can be done. I don't think we want to make it look like a compound
though, but I understand your concerns.
Rasimowicz: back to Mr. Patel’s question about fencing. I would not recommend that,
there are wetlands in the rear and just to get approval from the State to put a fence in
the wetlands-I don't think you are going to get it. My concern is that access road. Right
now it is a hangout because there are abandoned buildings back there. Once those
buildings are gone and the area is restored with grass I don't believe the fire department
is going to need access back there. It is my understanding that the trespassing stems
from the abandoned buildings. I want to discuss that further with the fire official who
provided the letter about providing a chain across the access. I believe a berm would
deter people from driving back there.
Alfieri: we will agree with whatever you decide.
Ira Levin is sworn in as a consultant on this project. With regard to the security; all of
the walls all the way around is concrete, very thick concrete. To prevent a bullet from
exiting the building, the walls are very thick concrete. If someone were to back a truck
through a wall to get to the firearms the first thing that is going to happen is the motion
detectors are going to go off and notify the police department. The store itself, which is
within the building, when not open for business, will have roll down gates so that there
will be no unauthorized access from within the building.
Teller: when I come into the building at night are the lights off, who lets us in?
Levin: it will be motion activated.
Teller: okay I open the door, and all my friends come in. How do you stop that?
Levin: you use your key fab to activate a biometric scanner which you will use one of
your fingers to activate and open the door. That way we make sure that a member is
opening the door.
Teller: well I have the door open, how do you stop all of the people from coming in with
you?
Levin: the second thing that happens is that there are cameras all through the facility
that will record to the cloud all activity 24 hours a day.
Teller: banks have cameras, they still get robbed.
Levin: guests are allowed in, with the exception of the hours that you are requesting
them not be allowed. If we find out that they have guests coming in during those hours
that they are not allowed, than they are going to be at risk for losing their membership.
Teller: so really you have no security to speak of overnight?
Levin: if you are asking if we will have an employee there overnight, the answer is no.
There are no facilities that offer that kind of around-the-clock employee.
LaFata: what constitutes being a member?
Levin: a paid membership and membership to the NRA.
LaFata: so they have to be a member of the NRA?
Levin: yes we are going to request that.
LaFata: request for require?
Levin: it will be part of the requirement to be a member; I believe police said that in the
use variance.
LaFata: you currently work from home; you do not have a storefront?
Levin: correct
LaFata: you mentioned the overhead doors, the steel roll down doors. Where are they
located? I see one on the print, is that the secured area?
Levin: yes
LaFata: what stops me from walking through the range office through the storage door
into that area?
Levin: currently there are no requirements from the state police to have any interior
reinforced walls. So if you wanted to break in
LaFata: so why have a gate?
Levin: for a deterrent
LaFata: so why wouldn't we put something from the storage area to that if we have a roll
down gate?
Levin: well if you want we can do that. There is no legal requirement but we will do it.
LaFata: I understand that but then why even have the roll down door?
Levin: Just the look of it is a deterrent. Just to clarify; the wall that is around the store
itself will be concrete. We will change the other wall to concrete and keep the roll down
gate.
Kemm: it seems there is another access to the store besides the steel door?
Alfieri: We will remove that and make it a concrete wall with either a steel door or a roll
down door.
LaFata: I would prefer a roll down. Next question; last time you were here you are
going to have a range officer is that correct? Can you tell me where he is going to sit?
Levin: they don't sit; if you sit then you cannot see. They need to be on their feet and
walking around.
LaFata: how can they see on both floors?
Levin: there will be two range officers, one on each floor.
LaFata: during normal working hours?
Levin: yes
LaFata: from the lounge area is there a bullet proof window so that you can watch who
was on the range?
Levin: no
LaFata: where do you plan on putting your counter sales?
Levin: I don't know yet, I have to get with a cabinet maker and decide what I feel the
best layout for the traffic in the store is.
LaFata: well the way I see this layout, if it's not in your training room they can only be in
the lounge room because the other area has the roll down gate.
Levin: the store area is the entire secured area. This way I won't have to worry about at
night anything and pilfered. The whole store will be secured.
LaFata: this diagram is showing two emergency exit doors but nothing is showing on the
print for two emergency exit doors.
Levin: (asking the applicant - there are not 2 fire exits are there?)
Alfieri: we will bring the architect up next to testify as to that.
LaFata: what means of emergency egress do you have from the basement, how would
you get out?
Levin: from the staircase. I see, the other exit door is the emergency exit. We will
bring the architect up for that.
LaFata: regarding security, we already reached our security and now we have to doors?
Levin: there are steel plated encased in the concrete.
Damiani: will there be safety rules posted?
Levin: they will be posted and each member will be given a list of safety rules and then
there are range masters present.
Gurney: what kind of qualifications do you need to run a retail store and sell
ammunition?
Levin: that is what I do right now. You have to have a federal firearms license and you
have to have a state firearms license. Anyone who works for me has to be licensed by
the state and will be the only people authorized to sell guns and ammunition. The store
will be open until 10 PM, similar to Dick's sporting goods-we would have regular retail
hours.
Klein: I'm greatly impressed by your knowledge. I know that once everything is
approved and built it will be run correctly. Perhaps to address the safety that Mr.
LaFata was concerned with about people waiting behind the shooter, a yellow line.
You could have a yellow line that they would need to stand behind.
Levin: that is exactly what we were going to do, thank you.
Masters: the range officer armed?
Levin: generally most people who work in that facility are armed. I would be armed and
anyone who works for me selling firearms with the armed.
LaFata: I did hear you say that it was opened to the public, I'm confused
Levin: the store is open to the public.
LaFata: so if I went in and bought a gun, you would not let me use the range to shoot.
Levin: no, what I would do is give you a tour of the facility and maybe then you would
want to join.
Lawrence Cirangle is sworn in and accepted as an expert witness in the field of
architecture and has prepared the plans submitted.
Alfieri: there was a question about the 2 steel doors on the rendering. Please describe.
Cirangle: those doors are for egress from both floors of the building, the door further
back is for the first level, we have stairs going up. Those are only emergency access
with a panic bar on the inside but no hardware on the outside.
LaFata: what point on the diagram is that exit being drawn?
Cirangle: the drawing you have doesn't show it but we did it by code in terms of the
remoteness. In terms of egress you want to make sure there's enough travel distance.
You don't want to make them too close in case of emergency. (Shows Mr. LaFata on his
drawing where they are.) The floor plans that will ultimately be submitted to the
Township will reflect these two locations on the plan.
LaFata: if you are here for final site plan when will they show up on the plan?
Kemm: that brings up a good point. We are here tonight for site plan because they are
already approved for use variance. A lot of the questions that we have had deal with the
use of the property, which has already been handled in the use variance. The internal
layout of the property has been to refresh memory. We can't really consider that tonight
on the application before us. It is a site plan and the variances that have been
requested have been approved. Tonight we need to deal with the exterior; the lighting,
the paving, circulation. When we come to vote this evening we need to concentrate on
the site plan portion only.
LaFata: would you possibly consider where your store area is to relocate your range
office and install bulletproof glass so that you can see over what is going on?
Levin: there will be monitors in the range office so they should be able to see all of the
ports all of the time in front of them while they are working. There will be monitors in
front of them. The range officer’s responsibility is to be out there making sure everything
is operating in a safe manner. I just don't think this would be an effective means and I
don't know what impact it would have.
LaFata: and you mentioned that all of your security systems and cameras are put on
your diagram? Who approves that?
Levin: the construction department.
PUBLIC:
Charlie Lerman - 11 Doral Drive. It is the 1st he is hearing about this and is troubled.
This is not like any other business and it is selling firearms. I am concerned about
security and about people that don't belong can get in there. Doesn't think this is good
for Monroe Township.
Seeing no one further wishing to be heard, a motion to close the public portion is made
by Mr. LaFata, seconded by Mr. Klein and approved by all board members present.
Kemm: we will be voting on the site plan only and the variances discussed.
Rasimowicz: there are numerous conditions that the applicant has agreed to. Typically
we wouldn't vote for preliminary and final site plan. With so many pending conditions I
would recommend that we only vote on preliminary and have the applicant come back
before the board for final site plan approval.
A motion to approve the preliminary site plan is made by Mr. Klein, seconded by Mr.
Patel and approved by all board members present.
BA-5096-14 THE VERDE GROUP, LLC
Represented by Bob Smith, the applicant is here for a use variance, preliminary and
final subdivision and final site plan (7 lots).
Smith: I'm here this evening representing the Gateway mixed-use project. We have
been before you three times already. We were here in March 2012 for a bifurcated use
application which you were kind enough to approve. We then came back in July 2012
for preliminary site plan approval which you will sue approved. We were in for final site
plan approval in September 2013. We are here tonight to slightly modify what you have
already approved, and we think this is the last time we will be here. Technically, we are
here for an amendment to the use variance, preliminary and final major subdivision, and
preliminary and final site plan. Previously you give us approval for five commercial
buildings and uses. The amended plan that is before you tonight has to previously
approved Day Care facility removed, which is about 11,000 ft.² of commercial space.
We are down to four commercial buildings with the same uses that you approved
before. The McDonald's is adding 600+ or minus sq. ft. to accommodate their most
recent prototype construction plus the addition of two freestanding signs specific to the
McDonald's and to the Quick Check. With regard to the residential portion of the
property, you previously approved 150 residential units and what you have before you
tonight as we remove the 11,000 ft.² commercial we are asking to add 17 additional
townhomes to the project. Important part of this application is the enormous benefit to
Monroe Township. You may remember when you approve this the last time that there is
a very nice open space component to this project. We promised to dedicate 12.32 acres
to the Township of Monroe and we continue to make that promise. Assuming we can be
successful tonight with the minor change, the Council of Monroe Township plans to
consider this in December and they would like to move forward to the conveyance of the
open space. Seated to my right is Todd Oschner who is the principal of this project.
Todd Oschner is sworn in as the applicant and Principal of The Verde Group, LLC.
With regard to the open space portion; the Township approached me to create a
community park and an area for gardening and recreation. More walking trails and
passive activities. We are working with the town to dedicate that property and we
continue to work with the town to create this community garden and park and the
Township has hired somebody to oversee the project. We are anxious to start and once
the board approves we are ready to start.
Patel: I understand you are reducing the commercial intensity, but what is the need for
the residential townhouse to increase?
Oschner: we have yet to actually get a day care which is based off of the demographic.
The need for day care is not as profound as you might think. Because of the proximity to
the residential, so far off of the commercial portion of the site we didn't want to put a
different commercial there.
Patel: I still don't understand why we have to increase the residential?
Oschner: using an exhibit, marked A-5, shows the board what the differences are
between the prior approval and the proposed amendments. It made sense to have the
transition become residential instead of commercial.
Patel: instead of the townhomes why not make a grassy area?
Oschner: as part of the use variance we are dedicating 12.32 acres to the Township for
a park. We are far below the intensity of development that we would be allowed. We
had the concern about we can put in the place where the Day Care was originally
proposed, that close in proximity to the residential component.
Mark Lescavage is sworn in and accepted as an expert witness in the field of
Engineering. I prepared the plans for tonight's application. The difference between the
original approval and the application before you is as follows. There were three major
items that are different; the day care center is being removed from the project and we
are requesting to increase the townhomes by 17 to take the place of the Day Care
center, the McDonald's square footage is being increased by approximately 600 ft.², and
we are adding two freestanding signs for the McDonald's and the Quick Check both
along route 33. He describes the height and size variances in conjunction with the 2
new signs. The intensity has actually gone down from the previously approved site plan.
Smith: we are doing and economic subdivision on the Western track. We currently
have three lots there and we are proposing five. Can you please show us that?
Lescavage: referring to sheet eight in the submitted site plans; you can see the West
track is located at the center portion of the page and what we are proposing is to carve
out 4 lots, essentially following what would be the lease area limits of the four
commercial buildings. So referring to the plan we are proposing lot 12.01 to be about
1.5 acres and encompass the convenience, the quick check area. Proposed lot 12.02
being about .8 acres and that would be the area where the bank is located. Lot 12.03
which is where the village mixed use building is would be about 1.9 acres. Lot 12.04 is
where the McDonald's would be and that is a little over 1 acre. The remaining portion of
the property would be considered lot 10 which is an extension of the existing lot which is
at the northern end of the project that that remaining area would be 12.9 acres and
would encompass the residential area of the project and the storm water facilities which
will be required for the entire track so would be considered a common area, and a
portion of the Boulevard which would break up the residential and commercial area.
Smith: we are referring to it as an economic subdivision even though there is no
intention to ever alienate but rather it makes the leasing much easier and makes
financing much easier. That is the reason why we are doing.
LaFata: will that have any impact on the future if you plan on selling any portion of the
project?
Oschner: in essence that is correct but when you go to finance the building to be
constructed, like the mixed use building we will be constructing it, running it and
managing it. When it comes to the McDonald's, they construct the building and it is
called a land lease. With this, they lease the land from us and erect their own building to
their specific standards so their financing would separate from Quick Check who will
proceed the same way. The other option is to habits in a condominium plan which is
much more difficult than to have separate lots.
LaFata: I believe this is the first time that we are seeing a commercial entity subdividing
the lots out like this.
Oschner: this is the first time that we are doing that. To the extent that McDonald's and
Quick Check has their lease with us, they cannot get out of them whether I own the
property were somebody else owns the property. The lease will run with the land.
Remsa: the applicant is proposing something unique. The applicant is creating a
planning variance where none of the commercial properties are going to front on the
public street. I would ask the applicant to just explain a little bit about that and how all of
the properties are going to interact and how the residential component will envelop the
commercial.
Oschner: When you are dealing with an entity like McDonald's or Quick Check, they like
to maintain their own properties but there will be a master homeowners association that
will take care of all of the internal roads, the internal boulevards, the connector roads to
Applegarth Rd., all the storm water basins all of those separate lots will have that
interest in the overall homeowners association as well. So they will all be interconnected
and whatever we have approved by this board on the plan it will have to be built exactly
the way the board approves the plan. To the extent that our Boulevard in our connector
roads are private roads which is how you granted hours site plan approval. The main
boulevard that we run north to south in the connector roads are private and the up keep
will be shared with all of the entities. The difference is that the residential units will not
be responsible for the maintenance of the McDonald's or Quick Check because they like
to take care of their own.
Rasimowicz: we have seen a couple of things before the planning board however those
were done after the site was constructed. My question is will these be developed
individually?
Oschner: they will be developed in totality. We have the leases in place for the
McDonald's and the Quick Check.
Gurney: the townhouses have garages?
Oschner: yes they will.
Gurney: don't you think that the one section of townhomes is a little close to Applegarth
Rd.?
Oschner: using the exhibit; I don't believe so.
Lescavage: there is a buffer of trees over there, actually it’s probably better than some
of the other areas we have.
Oschner: the frontages of those homes are onto a separate road.
Gurney: okay, I understand there is a bus pickup-where would that be?
Lescavage: using the exhibit he shows location.
Gurney: last question, what is the use of the green area above the retention pond where
route 33 and Applegarth Road meet. Will that have any use?
Lescavage: that is not our property.
With regard to Mr. Remsa's report, we agree to all of the variances that are identified in
there. There are some minor comments with regard to the final plat and some signage
issues which we have no problem taking care of. So we would agree to the technical
comments in the planner's report. With regard to Mr. Rasimowicz is reported, we have
reviewed and except for clarified a few items we agree with the technical comments.
Referring to item 10 J-which is in regards to the driveways being essentially 2 feet
longer than what we have proposed we would indicate that we would provide the 18th
feet minimum which is required by the residential site improvement standards and that
18th feet being from the limit of the garage to the beginning of the sidewalk near the
roads which access the townhouse areas.
Rasimowicz: 18 feet is in accordance with the standard so I have no objection to the
waiver from our ordinance.
Lescavage: the second is with regard to the roadway; our roadways are 25 feet and
they are residential access road so there is no parking. We have provided a number of
signs and will provide a couple more signs to indicate. With that I believe the standard
allows us to go down to a 20 foot and we are providing 25 foot. I think the comment was
the road needed to be either 28 432 feet of parking is proposed. We would ask that the
25 feet that we proposed be appropriate for the project.
Rasimowicz: they are restricting the roadway to no parking, so 25 foot width is
appropriate and I have no problem with that.
Lescavage: the last item has to do with the condition of the prior preliminary approval; a
fence to be put on the western portion of the property adjacent to us, our neighbor
which is an office building. The indication is that it needs to be a 5 foot high black
aluminum fence which I believe was in the preliminary approval. Subsequent
discussions with that property owner and it was requested that we have a 6 foot high
PVC fence in that area. That is what we have on the plans now so we would ask that
that be considered.
Rasimowicz: this item was a condition of the previous approval as a request from the
adjacent property owner. I would defer to our legal counsel; I believe we need some sort
of official documentation.
Oschner: would the corresponding emails a sufficient?
Kemm: that would be fine; it sounds like the request came from that property owner.
Allison Coffin is sworn in and accepted as an expert witness in the field of planning. I
will limit myself to addressing the changes. We have an amended plan that is looking to
reduce the commercial floor area by eliminating the day care center and a slight
increase to the fast food restaurant. An increase in the residential component to take
the area where the Day Care center was to be constructed. There is some bulk variance
relief that the applicant is requesting tonight in addition primarily the bulk variance relief
relates to the economic subdivision. So that is minimum lot area, minimum frontage, lot
depth, front yard setbacks, side yard setback rear yard setbacks and frontage on a
public road for those for economic subdivision lots along the commercial entities.
There's also variance relief related to the landscape buffer depth. Also, some variance
for the signage. It is my opinion that special reasons exist for the granting of these
variances and that they can be granted without detriment to the safety, health and
welfare of the public. First let me address the D1 variance relief that is being
requested. Is my opinion that there a special reasons that exist for the granting of that
variance. We are typically looking to show that the general welfare is advanced by the
granting of the variance due to the particular suitability of the site and that the purposes
of the municipal land use law are being advanced. This site was previously deemed
particularly suited to the use and there is nothing that significantly changed. The change
that is proposed at this time in my opinion further advances the public good by a
decrease in the traffic generated by the reduced commercial component and the
increase in the residential component. These additional housing units will generate
increased housing to support the commercial aspect of the site. It also promotes the
intended purpose of the VC-2 district zone because with the removal of the day care
center there are no aspects that would call to school aged children. The additional
units also promote the use of mass transit. Another purpose that is a public benefit is
the dedication of the 12.37 acres of lands for the Township open space. It advances the
land-use law. It is my opinion that there is no significant negative impact based on the
variances that are requested. I have a variance for buffer depth which would result is no
detriment to the public. It is consistent with the prior approval in the buffer area is more
than adequately landscape. The variance for signage in my opinion is necessary to
provide the identity and to give advance notice to the motorist looking for those
driveways. The signs are designed with the heightened area to be visible over the
landscape area without having to reduce the height size of those landscaped areas. The
proposed development in my opinion is consistent with the recommendation of the
master plan and the VC-2 overlay district as well as providing the dedication of open
space along the Millstone River. The development is significantly lower than what could
be allowed by the master plan. The size of the tract does not meet the standards but it
is designed to meet the intent and purpose of the district. But it is my opinion that it
substantially advances the intent and purpose of the master plan and land-use
ordinance.
Rasimowicz: Mr. Oschner, when will you be conveying the land to the Township?
Oschner: we have it on the December agenda for the Township Council for the first
reading, second reading for the end of December. It is our position at this point that
sometime early in 2015 we will actually be conveying the property to the Township.
Remsa: Allison, I think the VC-2 overlay zone calls for the first 300 feet from route 33 to
be commercial. Does the proposed change still comply with the commercial within the
first 300 feet?
Coffin: yes it does.
Remsa: in terms of substituting the day care with the townhomes would your opinion be
that the new townhomes fit in with sort of that grid system with the rest of the site is
designed?
Coffin: yes it sort of squares it off.
Remsa: so it is consistent with what has already been approved?
Coffin: yes
Remsa: I did ask for more information having to do with the economic subdivision and
how everything is going to work together in order to maintain the public benefit of how
the site is going to operate.
Coffin: the subdivision will not change the way the site operates it will only change the
way the site is financed.
Remsa: the engineer indicated that he had no problem with my report and that he would
make any changes to the plan so I have no further comment.
Smith: since there are now a few more residential units there are a few more COAH
obligation. This matter was referred to your COAH committee and the financing
transfer for the affordable housing units is going into your housing trust fund as it was
for the first portion of the units. That was a recommendation of Mr. Remsa as well and
we agree with it completely.
Klein: making a statement to all developers that we need big-box stores along that
whole corridor off route 33. I'm glad to see that we are the first to start to develop that
way. It is ideal for of Walmart, etc. Between your property, Shared Properties, and
JSM will bring a lot of residences and severely impacts the school budget.
PUBLIC:
Charlie Lerman -11 Doral Dr. (inaudible because his mouth is too close to the
microphone). Testified in opposition of the increase townhomes because of the increase
in residential properties increasing the taxes because of school tax. Feels it is the
responsibility to the Mayor and Council to look out for the interest of its residents.
James Simmonds - 50 Bently Drive. I agree with what the last person said and that it
should be denied. Disagrees with the signage because from his backyard he can see all
of this and is directly affected. I agree with Mr. Patel and would like to see something
other than 17 homes. Thinks it's great that he is donating 12 acres but how much of it is
buildable?
Oschner: approximately 9 acres is uplands and buildable and the remaining is
wetlands and transition area.
Simmonds: how will there be access to that area?
Oschner: we are only donating the property, the Township is developing it. The good
news for you is that we are not changing anything on that side of the road except that
we are extending the water main at the request of the utilities department. So Bently
Rd. is exactly the same with the exception of the water main which will bring it closer to
Bently Rd.
Simmonds: we have huge traffic problems on Bently Road. I would like to see stuff
changed, like sidewalks even though I know my neighbor disagrees. If you to approve it
I would like to see the signs brought down to the 15 feet. I wish I had been present to
other meetings but I have four kids and me and my wife both work. This directly
affects me and I don't approve of any of it. I know we are to a point where we can't go
back but I think you can deny the 17 additional homes and the increased sign height.
Michelle Arminio - 9 Nathaniel Street. Have a couple questions regarding the 75 acre
tract minimum lot area in the Highway development zone were 36.63 acres is provided.
Is that because you are dividing the lots?
Oschner: the acreage is 38. 63 acres and that includes all of our property including the
open space.
Arminio: so the whole property was 38.63 acres when 75 acres for this use was
required. So that is a huge waiver.
Kemm: It's the HD zone but the VC-2 zone which is an overlay which means if you meet
certain requirements you can use the VC-2 zone requirements. They have chosen not
to so they are under the HD zone requirements.
Arminio: I still object to some of the higher density so I'll continue. The minimum
landscape buffer; requirement is 100 feet?
Oschner: it is the same buffer as on the original approval. The reason we have to
notice as a new variance is because of the removal of the day care.
Arminio: how about the minimum distance from the side buildings?
Oschner: they were already granted on the prior approval.
Arminio: okay, is not my intention to discredit your project it is just a pattern that we
keep approving higher density. My objection is really to the 17 additional townhomes.
It keeps happening, rules and regulations keep being waived and I think we are turning
this community into something closer to urban and benefits a few and the expense is for
many. We keep accommodating applicants and the citizens don't have the same
luxury. Questioned the COAH regulation. Also questioned the Planner's justification
as to the reduction in traffic. I feel bad for the poor guy who's got have a sign in his
backyard. I don't believe this advances the general welfare and I hope that you don't
approve the increased townhome portion.
A motion to close the public portion is made by Mr. Klein, seconded by Mr. LaFata and
approved by all board members present.
A motion to approve the application is made by Mr. Klein, seconded by Mr. Teller and
approved by all board members present with the exception of Mr. Patel who voted no.
MEMORIALIZATION: BA-5096-14 (The Verde Group, LLC), BA-5093-14 (Shared
Properties, LLC), BA-5081-13 (Shared Properties, LLC), BA-5091-14 (DiPasquale amended) are all approved.
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Patti Williams,
Secretary for the Board