TOWNSHIP OF MONROE
ZONING BOARD COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
July 31, 2012
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairwoman Carol Damiani who led the Salute to the
Flag.
Chairwoman 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 of the meeting 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 6, 2012 and the Cranbury Press on January 6, 2012; filed on January 6,
2012 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, Dhaval Patel, Marino Lupo, Mark Klein, Joseph Gurney, Betty
Schneider, Len Zivin, Henry Sloan, Stanley Teller, and Chairwoman Carol Damiani. Also present for the
board were Mark Rasimowicz Engineer, Patrick Bradshaw Attorney, and Mark Remsa Planner.
Damiani: Betty Schneider will be a full voting member.
A motion to approve the June minutes is made by Mr. Klein, seconded by Mr. Zivin and approved by all
board members present.
BA-5057-12
Carried to next month’s meeting
PAULO & FERNANDO MATOS
BA-052-11
THE VERDE GROUP, LLC
Represented by Bob Smith. The application before you is a mixed use project; we have been here
before for the use variance. We are here for the preliminary site plan approval. We had proposed a
mixed use of commercial, residential, and open space. Just to refresh your memory, we were proposing
the concept of a day care center of 11,000 sq. ft., a village commercial mixed use of 41,915 sq. ft., but
tonight we are asking for 33,500 sq. ft... We asked for permission to do a bank with drive thru for 3500
sq. ft., a gas station with a convenience store for 5,496 sq. ft. and a fast food restaurant with a drive thru
for 3910 sq. ft... All those uses remain the same and the same size. Residentially we were asking for
153 housing units, including inclusionary COAH housing, and as part of this application you may
remember that the Verdi Group will be donating to the town 12.32 acres for open space along the
Millstone River. My client and his professionals have met with the towns’ professionals to
accommodate the needs of the neighbor’s as well as any concerns that the professionals have. In June
we had a final review by the Monroe Township Environmental Commission for site plan review. As a
result of that meeting, the Monroe Township Environmental Commission issued a letter which was read
into the record and is exhibit A-25. I would also mention that we are seeking 4 bulk variances with
regard to loading areas, buffer width, parking, and free standing signs. As we go through the application
we will describe those requests and why they are appropriate.
1
Mark Lescavage is sworn in and accepted as an expert witness in the field of engineering. I am the site
engineer on this project. Referring to exhibit A-26, which is the site location map as a reminder. You
see the area to be developed, the area to be dedicated as open space. The area to the left of
Applegarth Rd. will be referred to as the west tract, and that consists of 3 lots; block 4 lots 10, 11.1, and
12.1. The leg of the red area to the east of Applegarth Rd. is block 6 lot 37 and we will refer to that as
the east tract. To the southeast on the red portion is block 5 lot 15.1, and that area is going to be
developed as a storm water management area. Those are the properties involved in the application.
The total area of the property is 38.6 acres which is including the 12.32 acres of open space. It is wholly
in the HD district of the township. What we have is a commercial portion of the project which is the
southern end of the west tract. There are 5 buildings proposed at that location; specifically starting at
the southwest corner fast food restaurant and drive thru. At the southeast corner we have the
convenience store and gas station of the project. Heading to the north we have a bank with a drive
thru, moving further north we have a day care center. Moving to the west, the building shaped as an
“L” that is our village commercial building which is 33,500 sq. ft. What you see to the north of this tract
is the residential portion of the project. There are 80 townhomes and just south of the townhomes
between the “L” building and the last southern end of townhouses is an apartment building which we
are currently proposing 31 COAH units.
Smith: so in summary we have a total commercial floor area of 57,406 sq. ft. which is a reduction from
what we originally proposed. We have a total of 153 residential units.
Lescavage: that is correct. There is on the east tract, 47 townhouses so all together 153. What has
changed since the use variance approval is; we rotated the fast food restaurant to the east 90 degrees.
At the time of the use variance there was a concern of the proximity to the western property. At that
time we proposed 77 feet off set in the side yard. We increased that to 107 feet in our initial submission
of the preliminary site plan. Also at that time we shifted the northern entrance of the project onto
Applegarth Rd., further south roughly 30 feet and this was to gain better site distance along Applegarth
Rd. Those 2 changes were made; we then submitted new plans and went through the technical review
committee process where we received input. We made further changes based on that input, specifically
with concern to the side yards of the townhouse areas. In certain areas we had less then 5 feet from the
side of the town house to a travelled way and our solution to that was to reduce the boulevard which
were initially was 56 feet in width and had an 8 foot median. We reduced that to 48 feet in width with
an 8 foot median and we put a 12 foot lane in each direction which is sufficient for the traffic and an 8
foot shoulder/bike lane to add to the transit oriented portion of the project. This allowed for less
impervious coverage and it also increased the separation of the townhomes from the parking drive to a
minimum of 8 feet. We also added some parallel parking to the east tract along the looped portion of
the project which is at the south end. This was to alleviate the concern of parking issues blocking the
road for a potential fire lane. We also added an emergency access to the east tract from Bentley Rd.,
strictly to be used for emergency vehicles. We were able to utilize the existing driveway that services
the residence that is currently on the property so we have a minimal amount of disturbance in that area
but it will allow an emergency vehicle to get in and out. The flex building was reduced from 41,915 sq.
ft. to 33,500 sq. ft. and this was to accommodate some additional parking that we felt we needed. The
apartment building was previously a 26 unit building with 16 COAH and 10 market rate units; we are
now indicating that as a 31 unit building to satisfy the inclusionary requirements of COAH. The most
significant feature that we added is regarding the storm water was the 3 wet ponds that were indicated
in the environmental commission letter. We added those ponds; one to the southwest of the western
tract, 1 large “L” pond at the southeast end of the west tract, and also the offsite pond which is across
the street in block 5 lot 14.01. We added that both because the soils in the area can accommodate the
2
wet pond and the amount of tributary area that we have, but also to put into play the rainfall harvesting
of the project which is to be used as an irrigation system for the landscaping on the project. So it is an
excellent re-use and capture of the storm water on the property. The other change was the cul-de-sac
at the northeast corner of the townhouse being replaced with a hammerhead.
Zivin: around these wet ponds, are proposing and fencing or grading, especially around the McDonalds?
Lescavage: It is discussed in the engineer’s report and it is something that we would agree to.
Gurney: Is there something there about a bus pick up station, a bus into New York?
Lescavage: yes, there are 2 bus shelters proposed on the project. One on the west tract to the north of
the entrance road and one to the south of the eastern tract entrance. Both of those have sidewalk and
crosswalks.
Gurney: where are the cars going to park for people that are on the bus?
Lescavage: it is really for the residents of the project, there is no lot for it.
Smith: There are 2 park and rides in close proximity to this for township residents.
Klein: the entrance into the center from route 33, are you going to be able to get from the State
approval for a right turn lane where the break down lane is. Up the road a ways, we have a problem
with Renaissance where if they went into the breakdown lane they got a ticket. If you go to slow down
to enter into Renaissance you can get hit in the rear. To avoid that I’m asking if you can get prior
approval to have that right turn lane put in.
Lescavage: we do have a traffic engineer who will testify.
Smith: can you discuss the professional’s reports? Can we comply with the recommendations in those
reports?
Lescavage: I think we can. I need to clarify a few sections. With regard to the Planner’s report; the
variances requested are for loading areas for the fast food restaurant, the bank, and the daycare. The
indication is that these uses will only have 2 deliveries per week with very short intervals and so would
not need an area dedicated and would ask for relief. The Quick Check has a loading area in the rear of
the building. It is 12X80 which is compliant with the ordinance. In terms of the village commercial
building, because we don’t know the tenancy of that building yet, there may be a need for a dedicated
loading area but at this point in time we would defer that to final. With regard to the free standing
signs; there are 3 variances associated with the signs that we are asking for. One is the number of free
standing signs, 1 is allowed for the project and we are proposing 4. The sign area, which is 50 sq. ft. plus
10 feet more for each use on the property so I think we have a minimum of 6 uses which would allow
100 sq. ft. so we are proposing 411 sq. ft. so that would be a variance. Also the setback; I think the
ordinance calls for 75 feet which seems excessive, but we are proposing 5 feet for 3 of the signs and 3
feet for the 1 sign on Route 33. We think it is appropriate because of the amount of frontage on Route
33 – we have 700 feet. To have only 1 free standing sign we think is not appropriate given the frontage.
On Applegarth Rd. we have 1200 feet along that area. Also, because this is a mixed use project, we feel
that we need a sign on each side of the residential to indicate where those 2 specific uses are and we
3
feel that along Route 33 obviously we need a sign and also another sign indicating where the
commercial is along Applegarth Rd. These signs would also accomplish a more safe circulation through
the site. We are also seeking relief for buffer width; it is the same width since we started the project.
We feel that it is appropriate, what we are providing because of the amount of plantings that we are
putting in. We are putting in berming on the north and central end of the Applegarth Rd. area. As you
have seen from the Environmental Commission Report, they feel that we did a good job in meeting the
intent of the 100 foot requirement. We have an average of 73 feet.
Smith: we are also requesting some design exceptions, would you address them please?
Lescavage: the maximum driveway width is indicated at 35; we have somewhere around 90 feet on
Applegarth Rd. and 150 feet on Route 33. It sounds like a lot but all of the driveways are bifurcated in
that they have a 1 right in and a right out – 2 different areas going in and out. Also, these are under the
jurisdiction of Middlesex County for Applegarth Rd. and NJDOT for the Route 33 entrance so we must
comply with the highway access management code. We feel that they comply with the code.
With regard to the landscape islands; I believe it was indicated as 6 feet. We do have several islands
that are 4 feet minimum. We feel that it is appropriate at the locations that we are proposing them.
There are no sidewalks along those islands or anticipated foot traffic in those areas. We feel that the
bulk of the comments on the site plan we can accommodate, with regard to the Planner’s report, with
revised plans in moving ahead for final. There were 3 items that I wanted to discuss; specifically item 8D
on page 5 with regard to the restrictive left from the McDonald’s exit drive. I am going to defer that to
our Traffic Engineer. Under item 9C and D on page 6 with regard to providing a 15 foot setback for the
31 unit affordable housing building in the front area to accommodate some plantings. Because we don’t
have architectural plans for that building we would like to defer that comment to final. We are not sure
that 15 feet can be accommodated but we can certainly do better that I believe 5 ½ feet proposed. The
reason why there may be an issue getting the 15 feet is that if you look at the plan, the last row of
townhouses just to the north of it I believe is between 25 and 29 feet back to back. If we were to add
another 10 feet separation that would really reduce the separation between those buildings. We would
defer that to final. Regarding the berming with the buffer on Route 33 and Applegarth Rd.; we did
provide a berm where possible along Applegarth Rd. The exception is the areas where we have the wet
pond, which because of the constraint where the pond is and the property lines; we could not do the
berming. However, we think that in the case that the wet ponds are a feature of the project and we did
adequately landscape around it, we feel that we meet the intent of providing berming.
Smith: those are the only concerns in Mr. Remsa’s report?
Lescavage: correct.
Smith: let’s go to Mr. Rasimowicz’s report.
Lescavage: We can comply with most of it but there are a couple of clarifications. With regard to item
8D; specifically improvements to Bentley Rd... Mr. Rasimowicz asked for widening and curb and
sidewalk along that area. In our plans we show just curbing to the street and no widening. This was
done after some concerns of the residents of Bentley Rd. who did not want to invite traffic along that
road. We are not opposed to that other than the fact that we were trying to accommodate the
residents. We would ask that we don’t do the improvements but we are at the Board’s pleasure. Item
8H will be deferred to our traffic engineer. Item 8N; it is excel and deceleration lanes and we will
provide as long as we can get it approved through NJDOT. Item 8R regarded a requirement for a certain
4
amount of landscaping within parking areas that have more than 20 vehicles. We feel that given the
way the project is designed, several of the uses have parking around the building because of the nature
of how they function and that the opportunity to provide sufficient landscape isles to get the 10% really
isn’t available for most of the project, with the exception of the village commercial building which you
do see that there are those islands associated with that building. However, given the fact that the
overall project is 41% impervious coverage where 60% is allowed and the layout we feel is adequate, we
would ask for a design exception for that requirement. Item IX is dedication that the interior pond
slopes need to be 4 to 1 as opposed to 3 to 1 proposed. We feel that it is adequate given that the best
management practices for wet ponds allows 3 to 1. We feel this is adequate and we are putting fencing
around it.
Rasimowicz: the board is in receipt of my review letter; I have no objection to the relief requested.
Bentley Rd., as far as the improvements there – I agree not to do those roadway improvements with the
exception of the obvious radius at the corner and the curb transition to the existing road. With regard
to road improvements along the dedicated property that is near the bridge, I would agree that in that
case that the road improvements not be installed there as well. It is land dedicated to the Township. As
the applicant indicated it is adjacent to the County Bridge and I know some time in the future the county
will be doing improvements out there on that bridge and the area of the dedicated land. As far as the
remainder of the property along the retail area and the townhome area; full frontage improvements will
be provided?
Lescavage: yes
Rasimowicz: I have no objections to the waivers; you have put the arguments on the record. With
regard to the emergency access on Bentley Rd., for the surface I prefer the top soil over the stone pad.
It is less inviting for someone to try to drive in. Again, we will defer that to the fire district for their
comment. I do not have an objection to the 3 to 1 slope in the basin. The village retail sq. ft. has
decreased from 41, 000 to 33,000 but the footprint hasn’t changed. Can you clarify on that?
Lescavage: the footprint is 21,915 sq. ft. and initially the 2nd floor was almost as large. That has been
reduced to get to the new reduced number.
Rasimowicz: garbage collection for the apartment building, the townhomes and day care?
Lescavage: the day care center I would defer to final when we can talk to the actual user as to whether it
is required and if it is we will provide. The townhomes we plan on curbside pick up. The apartment
building we will also defer to final.
Rasimowicz: hours of operation for this site?
Lescavage: I don’t think we have a restriction at this point, so it could be 24 hours.
Rasimowicz: okay. I believe the applicant has agreed to all the remaining comments in my review letter,
other than the items being addressed by the traffic engineer.
Remsa: there are 2 check list waiver items that need to be addressed: they are minor in nature and I
think they can both be provided as a condition if you so choose to approve this site plan. One is a
5
requirement for providing the location of the structures and uses within 200 feet of the site. Do you
agree to provide that as a condition of approval?
Lescavage: yes
Remsa: the other item is the tree removal plan; they have provided an extensive landscape plan so that
would substitute for the replacement plan but the tree removal plan would normally be required at this
point. That can also be something that you provide as a condition.
Lescavage: yes
Remsa: moving on to the affordable housing units; I’m glad to hear that the applicant is providing the 31
units, because that will help Monroe Township address its affordable housing obligation. I also want to
stress that that number may be reduced if in fact the new state requirements provide for a bonus for
rental units. We don’t know right now. In terms of the variances; I am also glad to hear they are going
to be looking at the loading for the large “L” shaped building and deferring it to final. I am fine with
that. Also, I would agree with the applicant that the loading is really not necessary for the other uses;
the bank, the child care center. They are providing for the Quick Check and the McDonalds’ has its own
unique operation. In terms of signage; the HD zone sign requirements are really for the large scale
industrial – that is why it is 75 feet back. It doesn’t really contemplate this kind of development. The
Master Plan does for the overlay that is recommended and the pending ordinance that will be in affect
relatively soon. So the signs that they are proposing, and it is monument signage, will be in keeping with
the intent with light that shines onto the sign. The design exceptions have been addressed. Other
items will be address by the traffic expert. With regard to the site engineering, I think we have covered
it from a planning perspective.
Patel: Mr. Rasimowicz, regarding the basin slope – is it the municipal ordinance that is not to exceed 4 to
1?
Rasimowicz: municipal ordinance is 4 to 1; the residential site improvement standard is 3 to 1. What we
look at is from a stand point of maintenance. Maintenance on a 3 to 1 slope is a little tough but they
have wet ponds so there is no grass cutting inside the fence area.
Patel: thank you. Regarding the loading for the McDonalds’, you are saying that they are only getting
deliveries twice a week?
Lescavage: yes
Patel: is the Verde Group going to own it or do you have a franchisee coming in?
Lescavage: it is Corporate owned.
Patel: do you have it in writing that they only have deliveries twice a week?
Lescavage: no that is only talking with the representatives from McDonalds.
Patel: so it could increase to more than twice a week if necessary?
6
Lescavage: I think they have a pretty good handle as to when the deliveries come and for this size store
this is what their normal delivery is.
Patel: where will the truck stop to make its delivery – I mean the rear entrance would be where they are
entering.
Lescavage: what they typically do, they would come around where the drive thru is, they would go
around the bypass and they would stop just south of where the drive thru would be. They would make
their delivery and they would come back. For the amount of time, 20 minutes twice a week, we feel it is
appropriate.
Patel: so you have enough space there for the drive thru lane as well as the pass by lane for any cars and
trucks stopped there?
Lescavage: that is correct.
Patel: thank you
Gurney: Does the Verdi Group have firm commitments yet from the McDonalds, the Quick Check and
the Bank?
Smith: depending on how the board would like it, I have talked to the principal of the Verdi Group who
says, “Yes we do”. If you would like him sworn in he can give testimony under oath.
Todd Oschner is sworn in as the owner and applicant. We have corporate guarantees from McDonalds
as well as Quick Check. They will both be corporate owned stores.
John Rea is sworn in and accepted as an expert witness in the field of Traffic Engineering. A traffic study
has been prepared and submitted to the board dated May 30, 2012. As Mr. Lescavage indicated the 2
roads on which we have frontage; Route 33 and Applegarth Rd. are under the jurisdiction of the NJDOT
and Middlesex County respectively. The way the access system has been set up I think is very sound and
logical and will provide safe and efficient traffic flow. We have a right in, right out driveway from and to
the west bound lanes of Route 33 at the approximate mid- point of the property and lining up with the
boulevard that serves as access to the various uses. We have 2 driveways on Applegarth Rd... One is a
driveway located approximately at the mid-point of the Applegarth Rd. frontage. That driveway will
permit right turns in, right turns out, and left turns in only. Left turns out of that driveway will be
prohibited. The remaining Applegarth Rd. driveway is a flow way intersection connecting the 2
townhouse projects at the north end of the site. We are anticipating signalizing that intersection of
course the signal will have to be approved by Middlesex County, but it is our intention to provide it at
that intersection not only to serve the townhouses, but to serve traffic generated from the mixed use
development project that wants to return to the north on Applegarth Rd. We are limiting left turns at
the mid-point driveway so we want to bring all of the traffic up to the north access where we are going
to signalize the driveway. As far as the parking is concerned; I do believe it is well distributed
throughout the site. As Mr. Lescavage indicated before we have a Quick Check located in the lower right
hand corner of the site. Adequate parking has been provided around that store. The bank just to the
north will have adequate parking around its operation itself. The Daycare operation will have 40 parking
spaces to serve its’ operation and in my experience of a daycare center this size they will require 35 – 40
parking spaces. We are providing 40 which will be adequate based on my experience. The McDonalds
7
will also have its own self contained parking area and a drive thru window that will function acceptably
for their anticipated peak parking usage. The only area that is in question that I had to do a little bit
more work on and provide some information to Mr. Remsa and Mr. Rasimowicz, is the area where there
will be shared parking between the apartment building and the “L” shaped retail building which will
have retail on the 1st floor and office on the 2nd floor. There are 3 different uses in this area. What I
needed to do in this area where there are 184 parking spaces, I needed to do a shared parking analysis
using the methodology that the Urban Land Institute lays out. Essentially what happens is you go
through an hour by hour parking accumulation analysis for both a week day and weekend day,
particularly a Saturday. You prepare a matrix of how much parking each one of the 3 different uses
generates during each peak hour and then you sum it up and see what your total parking demand is
anticipated to be. I will tell you that I did a very conservative analysis, using conservative parking ratios
for the 3 different uses. Again, in the area that we are talking about there are 184 spaces that need to
be adequate for those 3 uses and in going through the study I came up with the following numbers. The
peak parking accumulation on a week day will occur at approximately 2pm with a total of 163 cars
parked in that area. The peak parking accumulation on a weekend occurs at 2pm and 3pm with a total
of 151 cars anticipated. So based on the shared parking study I am very confident that the 184 spaces
that have been provided will be more than adequate. As far as they DOT process is concerned; Mr. Klein
asked about the acceleration and deceleration lanes, we will be applying to the DOT for those lanes, but
ultimately the decision is up to the DOT. I have a feeling we have a pretty good chance of getting those
lanes because there is already a 12 foot shoulder along the west bound travel lanes of Route 33 and
normally the DOT only requires 13 feet so we are probably going to have to widen the shoulder by
another foot, maybe a little more to meet the DOT’s standards. We will apply though. As far as the curb
cuts and access points to Applegarth Rd. are concerned; they are under the jurisdiction of the County.
My expectation is they will have their engineer’s at the planning board review our plans. They will meet
with us and we will accommodate and take care of any comments they may have but based on the
location of the curb cuts and the general geometry that has been provided on Mr. Lescavage’s plan, I
don’t see any reason why we can’t obtain Middlesex County approval for the location of those curb cuts.
As far as the width of the curb cuts is concerned; I think we require some waivers or variances I’m not
sure which. Again, the Route 33 access has been designed in accordance with the DOT criteria. It’s
going to require a curb line opening wider than 35 feet in order to get the separate right turn in and
right turn out movements to be made safely and efficiently. Trucks will be using that entrance, so the
plans as they have been prepared right now I think they are pretty close to what the DOT is going to
accept. There may be some minor modifications – the DOT always likes to take a red pen and mark the
plans up. I expect that it will happen but it will be minimal changes and you are going to see the curb
cut approved in the general location where it is and with the general geometry that has been provided
on the plans. As far as the townhouses are concerned; adequate parking has been provided for both the
east tract and the west tract in accordance with the residential site improvements standards. We have
checked and double checked and we meet the requirement. With regard to the Applegarth Rd.
intersection with Route 33; on our plans you will see there is a widening along the entire Applegarth Rd.
section on the west side of the road where we have property frontage and along the east side when you
have townhouses and it is my expectation that DOT will welcome the addition of a separate dedicated
right turn lane which we will be providing at that intersection. Right now you have a 2 lane approach to
the intersection, we are going to widen that out to a 3 lane approach. We are going to divert the
existing curb lane, which is for a combination of through movements and right turn movements. We are
going to turn that into a separate through lane and a separate right turn lane and that should help
alleviate some of the congestion at the intersection. That basically summarizes it all.
8
Smith: In Mr. Rasimowicz’s letter (item 8DD) and in Mr. Remsa’s letter (about the parking variance) were
both comments deferred to the traffic engineer. You have done an extensive analysis, is it your
professional opinion that this site has more than enough parking spaces for the uses proposed?
Rea: absolutely, yes I do.
Smith: In Mr. Rasimowicz’s review letter (item 8H), regarding the entrance to the townhouses.
Rea: the short boulevard entrance that Mr. Lescavage has provided there is not in response to try to
comply with RSIS or any kind of a traffic issue. It is more of an aesthetic issue that we felt it would look a
little bit nicer if we mirrored the boulevard on the left side with something on the right side that gave it
a little more of a grander entrance. The look that we have here is called “the multi-family access cul-desac” in the residential site improvements standards. They permit up to 1,000 daily peak hour trips on a
multi-family access cul-de-sac just for the single point of access. That is what is permitted without
providing a divided boulevard. We have 47 townhouses in this area and they each generate 6 trips per
day based on the RSIS, so if you do the quick math it is a little bit less than 300 total trips per day which
is well below the threshold that is permitted from the RSIS for a single point of access for a multi-family
access cul-de-sac. We believe that there is no traffic reason to extend the boulevard into the 1st access
point. There is no reason we have to do that in order to comply with the RSIS. Again, the boulevard was
put in for aesthetic reasons thinking it would be better visual entrance to that community of 47 homes.
Having said all of that, I think we can sit down with Mr. Rasimowicz and work something out with him
and hopefully satisfy him. We might be able to extend the existing boulevard a little bit further.
Smith: and you would have it worked out by the time of final?
Rea: yes
Smith: the last item that I have is from Mr. Remsa’s report (item 8D) regarding the southern driveway.
He recommends closing the median in the main road to require right turns only. The McDonalds has a
2nd driveway further north from the aforementioned driveway. The 2nd driveway provides left and right
turns in a safer location. Signage advising drivers entering the southern driveway from the site that they
have the choice of exiting onto Route 33 or taking the other driveway access to other parts of the
development.
Rea: Mark has some good points, as always in discussing this driveway. It is relatively close to the Route
33 access and we have taken a good hard look at that in order to see what we can do in order to
eliminate most of these potential conflicts. What we have decided to do here, and it doesn’t show
exactly on this exhibit, is instead of making the entrance at the Quick Check a two way entrance with
entry and exit movements is to eliminate the exit movement and made it an entrance only coming into
the Quick Check from Route 33. You will have to exit at one of the other access points. I agree that
there are some concerns in this area and one of the ways we thought to address it to eliminate that exit
movement at the Quick Check. The McDonalds at the other side of the island, I don’t see why we can’t
permit an exit only and we will sign it, double sign it. There will be pavement markings indicating a “one
way”, but we feel the exit from the McDonalds at that location is appropriate and safe. I think that
cleans the area up from a safety perspective and it will work acceptably.
Smith: and by the way, I believe the plans have been changed to reflect that.
9
Remsa: so you have eliminated 2 movements in that area to ensure the safety? That was my concern,
too much going on so this is better.
Zivin: when you did you r calculations of the parking for 184 area, what stores did you use in that
shopping area because depending upon what stores are there will determine how many parking spaces
are required.
Rea: correct – we used, according to the Urban Land Institute, the general retail rates. What I can tell
you is that for the weekday, the Urban Land Institute recommends a maximum parking ratio of 3.8
spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for general retail space which would include some restaurant space. We used
for 4 for the weekday. For the Saturday peak hour, the Urban Land Institute recommends using a peak
parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. and we used 5. If anything, we are on the safe side.
Gurney: since the patrons and trucks who want to go out have to go left onto Applegarth, they have to
drive through the housing area. I have a concern about safety in having trucks and cars going through
the housing area.
Rea: well, the only way to make a left turn to go back north on Applegarth is that last intersection which
is going to have that traffic signal. Left turns are going to be prohibited other than that. It is a small part
of the housing area; it is mostly the commercial area before they get just too where the traffic signals
will be.
Smith: the thought was that with the boulevard you were eliminating much of the concern that you
would have with just a small 2 lane roadway.
Rea: yes certainly, there is a 12 foot travel lane and an 8 foot shoulder/bike lane so it is easily wide
enough to accommodate that traffic. I think that at the end of the day it will be mostly passenger
vehicles, people who live north of the site that are going back up Applegarth Rd. There may be some
delivery trucks that use that that are going back to the north. It can accommodate some limited level of
that activity. I still think most of the truck traffic, for the McDonalds and Quick Check is going to come
on and off Route 33.
Klein: when you calculated the parking where the townhouses are, did you leave room for visitors?
Rea: yes
Klein: what did you guesstimate as far as that?
Rea: well the RSIS requires in your parking calculation that in addition to the driveway and garage
combinations you have to have 0.5 on street parking spaces for every unit and we have provided that
for both sections.
Klein: the part that I don’t understand is that when they want to leave Quick Check, according to this
they would have to go around, out the back and then take that up to the boulevard to make a left.
Rea: yes, from here (looking at the traffic circulation slide)if they wanted to go back to Route 33 they
could make the left and come do that, or they would go up to Applegarth if they wanted to go north. Or
if they wanted to go back to the east on 33 they would come out and use this driveway.
10
Damiani: the gas stations, is there going to be diesel trucks that go in?
Rea: not the high speed diesel trucks, we have diesel for diesel pickup trucks and such – it is a slow
speed pump. The large over the road trucks will not come in here; it would take them 45 min to an hour
to get filled up. They will go to the high speed pumps.
Rasimowicz: with regard to the shared parking, you took into consideration the apartments?
Rea: yes
Rasimowicz: with regard to the McDonalds, Quick Check, and the bank – I am not seeing them listed on
the trip generation?
Rea: yes, and the reason is if you go to page 2 on the study; what we do in accordance with the DOT’s
methodology, is take all of the retail area, including the ground floor of the village building, the bank,
Quick Check, and McDonalds – you sum all of the square footage up and use the shopping center rate.
That is the mandatory way according to the NJDOT.
Rasimowicz: thank you for clarifying.
Remsa: with regard to the diesel trucks, is it possible to put a sign up there that says “no trucks”?
Rea: yes
PUBLIC:
Phil Levy – 92 Kings Mill Rd. (Not completely audible – holding the microphone to close) What is the
builder’s objection to extending the island to prevent the left turn into McDonalds from Route 33? I
have witnessed where there are no left turn signs that people make the left hand turn. It is a dangerous
situation because the entrance is only one way. The other question has to do with the northern
boulevard entrance (inaudible). Concern about the fire trucks entering.
Rea: it is not the developer objecting to extending the island in here. The island has been extended
from what was originally proposed and now it comes in pretty deep into the site to the location of the 2
curb cuts. We understand the concern and I can only tell you that the way we have configured this with
the entrance and the exit on from the McDonalds I have no doubt that it is proper, it is safe, it will
function. There is no impediment to sight distance in that area. We think it effectively distributes the
traffic for all those uses in a proper and safe manner and there won’t be any issue with it.
Leonard Gross – 225 Valencia Dr. It is nice to hear you are going to get an acceleration/deceleration
lane. We are still waiting for 2 years for ours. Regarding traffic; you are improving half of the
intersection. The traffic that goes east on Rt. 33 that will make jug handle to get into this development,
there are already issues at that intersection. Will anything be done on that side of the road?
Rea: yes but by another applicant. There is an approval for a shopping center on the southwest corner
of Applegarth Rd. and Route 33. They will be doing the improvements on the south side of the
intersection; we will be doing them on the north. There will be a mirror image of the improvements.
11
Gross: regarding the 20 acres on the other side. I know that there is a proposal for an art
center/community gardens. Is the Township prepared to go along with that or is that just a wish that
Mr. Oschner has laid out on the table?
Remsa: like any application that has dedicating open space it always is subject to the approval from the
receiving end, in this case the Township Council.
Gross: so the town has no decision on what it is going to do with the property it could be left fallow?
Remsa: it does not get decided here so it is another process.
Esther Gregory: I believe there are no age restrictions for the townhomes or the apartment building that
is there? That is 80 townhomes and 31 units for the apartment building. My concern is that they are
zoned for Oak Tree and Applegarth School and we are pretty much at capacity so how are we going to
handle that. Secondly, the town should require sidewalks throughout the township and they are asking
developers to add sidewalks in which I appreciate. The biggest concern is what the speed limit is on
Applegarth Rd. for the 2 bus stops that they are proposing as well.
Rea: they are not going to be school bus stops. The shelters that are going to be provided are for transit
busses so that if anybody from the townhouse wants to take the transit bus they will have a bus and a
stop.
Lillian Augustine – 113 Rossini. The issue of the traffic concerns with Butcher Rd. and the jug handle; we
were told previously and I don’t know if it was Planning board meeting or not; that when we attended
meetings because of the shopping centers coming in – we were told that the township would insist that
before anything was done that the jug handle would be addressed no matter what side of the road
construction was going to be developed on. I believe that is what we were told. I am asking this panel
of zoning board people who approve variances, who probably had to give a variance for Renaissance @
Monroe to be built, to consider that fact that you have residents there. When you are building on this
side, and those trucks have to come down, there is no way that those people will be able to get the
trucks down and around that side of the road. I’m begging you to please consider that we have 4
entrances and exits before we get down to the jug handle turn. It will be horrendous for us! Please put
some pressure on to have that section of the highway corrected before these people are allowed to
make the improvements that you want to see on the other side of the road.
Rasimowicz: the applicant across the street who is required to do those improvements actually has an
application back before the planning board seeking an amended preliminary and final. That has been
submitted and should be agendized I would assume within the next month or two. An approval of that
moves that improvements along on the jug handle.
Smith: It is my understanding that they have already received their NJDOT access permit which means
that they have already taken that big step and are further ahead than we are.
Joe Masoni – we are the neighbors directly on the southwest corner of the project. We are a 2 story
professional building. Regarding the border property line between our 2 properties; the plan looks like
it has significant landscape but I want to make sure the width and height of the berms including the
plantings are going to be adequate screening for our needs. Number 2, we think we should have a fence
along that property line for numerous reasons. One, we think that it will be a deterrent for people
12
walking on our property. Two, we have a concern that there may be some kids hanging out and we are
the property right next store. There could be garbage blowing. We think we need a significant barrier
there. The other question I have; there is a large existing tree line along that property line which is
mature and beautiful trees. We want to make sure those trees are going to remain.
Lescavage: we do not have a fence proposed; we are at the board’s pleasure for that.
Masoni: I understand the town wants to keep everything open and green so I could recommend possibly
one of those aluminum fences which blend into the landscaping and it keeps the beauty and deterrent.
Oschner: we met with these neighbors twice. The original plan had a much less intense planting area
adjacent to their property line. They also had concerns in the beginning about the location of the
McDonald’s and we took care of that. They also had some concerns with some of the sidewalks and
drainages area, etc. What we tried to do in lieu of putting a fence in is supplemental plant the existing
tree line that is there. They have a large deciduous tree line that works very well from about 20 feet up,
so we added evergreens and additional deciduous trees. We would not be adverse to putting a fence in.
We would put it directly on their property line, but right now I believe the intent that we put in
landscaping wise would be a better asset as opposed to the fence. We would be willing to put the fence
in and remove some of the landscaping or whatever combination the town planner would address as a
condition of final. We would recommend that the fence not go in the buffer area which is the 60 foot
section from route 33 back and it would be a fence that would be low maintenance and aesthetically
pleasing. We would only run it to the back side of their property line.
Masoni: we did meet with Mr. Oschner and I want to say that he has met with us and has been
agreeable and has made significant changes to this plan which definitely helps us and I wanted to make
sure I acknowledged that. Regarding the acceleration/deceleration lane; how far down does that
extend?
Rea: the DOT will only permit us to construct the widening along our property frontage so it would
extend to the property line.
Masoni: behind the McDonalds there are 6 or 7 parking spots that was, as of the last meeting, going to
be employee parking spots. Is that still the intention?
Lescavage: yes it is
Masoni: signage; will there be “golden arches” or large signs going up?
Remsa: there are going to be monument signs, the low signs.
Masoni: okay great, thank you
Bonnie Lacina – 46 Bentley Rd. Concerned with the traffic backing up during rush hour past Bentley Rd.
from Applegarth Rd. If you will be allowing left turns out concerned it will cause more of a back up.
Rea: I understand what you are saying. It is basically something that happens every day from about 4:30
to 6:30 pm. It is related to a lot of commuter traffic getting off the turnpike at exit 8A, they are probably
not Monroe people. They live in western Monmouth/northern Ocean counties and they are getting off
13
at exit 8A because that is where the car and truck lanes end. During the rest of the week it is not an
issue. The bottom line is; one of the 1st sketches and concepts we had was an exit coming out directly
opposite Bentley Rd. We went to extreme trouble and a lot of extra work to make sure that we didn’t
line up an access with Bentley Rd. because we heard the concerns of the people who live there.
Because left turns are going to be restricted to certain driveways, we are doing everything we can to
prevent our people from using Bentley Rd. to get back out to route 33. The other thing I will say is that
the DOT believes that when the turnpike improvements are done a lot of the people getting off at 8A
will continue down to exit 8 or 7a to Route 33 or 195. We are doing everything we can to minimize our
impacts.
Rasimowicz: it is a dedicated left turn off of Applegarth Rd. so they would be able to bypass that.
Esther Gregory: is there another phase to this?
Lescavage: it is being left at this point to maybe extend at some point in the future.
Gregory: for the residences, what would be the bedroom sizes?
Lescavage: all of the townhomes are 3 bedrooms; the apartment building is up in the air. It will be a mix
of 1, 2 and 3 but we don’t know the mix yet.
Gregory: okay, just concerned with how many kids we are bringing to the area.
Steve Banom – 165 Applegarth Rd. Concerned with traffic that happens in the morning not only in the
afternoon. When I leave for work I am stuck at the traffic light for a long period of time. I understand
that you are dedicating a left hand turn, straight lane, and right turn lane which will greatly alleviate the
traffic that we have in the morning and rush hour in the afternoon. But now you have 120 townhomes
and at least 2 cars per household. I’m not sure how widening the road is going to help the traffic
situation at all when you are adding 250 plus cars coming in and out of the development not to mention
the commercial area. Would you like to comment?
Rea: with regard to the townhomes, there might be 2 cars per unit but the reason why it works is
because those people don’t all leave for work in the morning at exactly the same time. This has been
proven by studies done by the ITE, and the DOT accepts these studies. The people that leave for work in
the morning do not all leave at the same peak hour. I can assure you that the peak hour of traffic that I
have modeled in my traffic study has been reviewed not only by the board’s professionals but it will be
reviewed by the DOT professionals and the Middlesex County professionals. There is no way that I could
make something up here that they won’t accept. This is all accepted data that is published and accepted
by all those agencies. That is all I can really tell you. I know it sounds like a lot to you but to a traffic
engineer the reason that a mixed use project like this works is because of the off peak hour traffic
generation from the mixed uses.
Banom: disagrees. Questions the traffic light and the distance from route 33. Questions the left hand
turn lanes and going through the residential area.
Rea: One of the reasons’ this type of mixed use works on a highway such as Route 33 and major county
roadway such as Applegarth Rd. is because a lot of the traffic is pass by traffic. It is traffic already on the
roadway passing the site.
14
Eileen Blum – 135 Murano. Concerned with the traffic also. Asking the height of the rental buildings?
Smith: we do not know the height yet it will depend on the Council for Affordable Housing. I am being
advised that it may or may not be rentals.
Glen Borsek – 59 Bentley Rd. My biggest concern was trying to minimize the traffic on Bentley Rd. and
Mr. Oschner and Mr. Rasimowicz worked with me on. I appreciate their efforts. I would encourage
trying to restrict the flow even more. I just want to make sure that the tree lines along the north, south,
and east sides of the east tracts will be staying either totally intact or significantly in tact?
Lescavage: yes it is
Damiani: okay, anybody else, one more
Michelle Arminio – I think the open public meetings act says you can’t do that. I think you can’t restrict
comment Madam Chairwoman.
Damiani: go ahead, because I need to take a break. It has to be different
Arminio: no, the open public meetings act says anyone can come up and speak on whatever matter they
choose. You cannot restrict comment.
Bradshaw: the point is, we can say that if you are making the same comments that someone has made
before you just simply say, “I agree with that person” and save that time and don’t make the same
comment again. That can be done.
Arminio: I would respectfully disagree with you.
Bradshaw: I can show you the case law after.
Arminio: okay, that would be great. I would like to ask are their sidewalks throughout the whole
development? Residential to all the commercial?
Lescavage: yes
Damiani: this is preliminary
Arminio: does that mean they could ask for waivers for final?
Lescavage: we submitted final plans and it does show sidewalks throughout the development.
Arminio: so you can walk through all of the areas, okay.
Remsa: there are not only sidewalks but extensive crosswalks.
Esther Gregory: you mentioned before about a bridge?
15
Rasimowicz: that would be further north on Applegarth Rd. beyond this project adjacent to land that is
being dedicated to Monroe Township for municipal purposes. There is no construction on that
property.
There being no one further from the public wishing to be heard on this application, a motion to close the
public portion is made by Mr. Zivin, seconded by Mr. Gurney and approved by all board members.
Klein: concerned with the residential portion of the project and amount of children that will come from
that housing. I’m worried about the impact on the schools. Going to the one exhibit that shows that the
amount of school tax revenue to be raised by the project is $962,981; is says school cost $390,000?
What would that be?
Smith: I think you may be looking at a fiscal impact analysis and what you do is you estimate the
revenues under the current tax rate of the commercial portion and the residential portion; to determine
whether there is a positive or negative fiscal impact you then subtract out the proposed number of
students and the cost to educate, and then the cost of municipal services and county services. I believe
what you are looking at was done by the planner at the time of use variance. This is not housing that is
designed to attract families. When people come to Monroe they like to have a backyard, to be near the
schools and playgrounds. These are townhouses and apartments on a bus route to New York City, next
to a shopping center. There are no pools, clubhouses, recreation. It is not designed to increase your
school population significantly.
Klein: on the affordable housing, what I would request is that that affordable housing be for either
elderly, low income elderly, disabled soldiers of all the services, policeman, and fireman as compared to
just opening it to section 8 housing or just poor families. That is my recommendation.
Smith: there is legislation going through the legislature giving veterans a preference on affordable
housing. It is already passed the senate and is over on the assembly side. It is a terrific idea. But some
of the other ideas that you have are probably currently volatile of the laws of the state of New Jersey.
Mr. Remsa’s nodding his head up and down. I think your goals and intentions are the best but you have
to ultimately conform to the laws of the state.
LaFata: under the affordable housing, are you required to have an area for children or people to have
open space?
Smith: I don’t believe so – we have to follow whatever the law is.
Remsa: Monroe Township is progressive in doing a municipally sponsored project for veterans and their
families and it will be a project on lands being dedicated by K Hovnanian to the town of roughly 26 acres
of land. The town is doing what it can.
A motion to approve the application is made by Mr. Klein, seconded by Mr. Lupo and approved by all
board members present.
BA-5061-12
GEORGE TARANTINO
Represented by Otto Kostbar – this is a use variance application, we are bifurcating the application. This
application is for block 92 lot 1 and block 95 lot 1 located on Mott Avenue. It is 12.5 acre heavily
wooded vacant parcel located in the R-10 residential zone and the FHC zone. There was an approval
16
previously granted by this board a change of use to allow for the construction of an automobile repair
facility in 1999. That facility was never built and Mr. Tarantino is now here with this application. Our
applicant is looking to construct a commercial building for an indoor shooting range. As we have all
seen on TV where the FBI and police practice shooting, which is what Mr. Tarantino is looking to do.
George Tarantino is sworn in as the owner applicant. I reside at 217 Old Forge Rd. and have been a
resident for many years. I also have a business in town, Tarantino Auto Body, located at 134 Helmetta
Road. I own the property for this application.
Kostbar: you are seeking permission to build an indoor shooting range?
Tarantino: correct.
Kostbar: you previously received approval for an auto repair shop?
Tarantino: yes
Kostbar: what is an indoor shooting range?
Tarantino: you did basically describe it – it is a building where people can go for target practice with
small arms. It is pistols and small target rifles.
Kostbar: are you a recreational shooter?
Tarantino: yes
Kostbar: have you ever used facilities like this?
Tarantino: yes
Kostbar: I don’t believe there is any use like this in Monroe?
Tarantino: no there is not
Kostbar: but there are other communities around that have these facilities?
Tarantino: yes, there is one in Jackson, one in Old Bridge and one is South River. They have stations
where each person can shoot. I am proposing to put 14-15 stations.
Kostbar: they are constructed I assume to certain regulations for shooting?
Tarantino: yes – there is a design team that designs the stations.
Kostbar: is there any sound that might impact the surrounding neighborhood?
Tarantino: no, the building is completely insulated and sound proof.
Kostbar: what would the hours of operation be?
17
Tarantino: 8am to 10pm.
Lupo: would you be selling any firearms on the property or would individuals come in with their own
firearms to practice?
Tarantino: we would like to do retail. I am going to apply for my federal license.
Lupo: that would just be small firearms?
Tarantino: yes
Zivin: is the floor going to be concrete?
Tarantino: yes, concrete
Schneider: I have nothing against guns but what is the age requirement for someone to come in?
Tarantino: we believe it will be 21.
Schneider: and how many employees would you have and what would be their certification?
Tarantino: right now we are not sure how many employees we are going to have. It depends on how
the operation works and they will all be certified NRA.
Schneider: okay
Kostbar: will there be any safety training on the premises.
Tarantino: that is what we are hoping; we have a safety officer here that hopefully will speak.
Klein: in 1999 you applied for a 4 bay auto repair and you got variances. Can I ask why nothing was done
in trying to develop what you originally got variances for?
Tarantino: because at the time the auto body business was a really good business. It is not a great
business anymore.
Klein: even with the price of cars and the price of repairs?
Tarantino: everybody is taking their money and running.
Klein: what do you mean as far as small arms? Small size or caliber? Will there be a limit as to what
caliber you will allow?
Tarantino: most ranges have a limit up to 45 caliber, which is above 9 millimeter.
Damiani: why do you think we need a shooting gallery in Monroe Township?
18
Tarantino: because Monroe Township actually hired back a police officer because there are so many
firearms applications. There are a lot of people in Monroe that have no place to shoot. There is no
Township ordinance that says they can’t shoot on their own property, this would be a lot safer for most
people.
Damiani: where do you shoot now?
Tarantino: I belong to Jackson range
Klein: you mention only pistols? If it were to be approved what would be wrong with using rifles, not
high powered.
Tarantino: absolutely, anything under 45 caliber – no high powered rifles.
Damiani: is this an organization? Do you have members?
Tarantino: no it would be open to the public.
Damiani: will it be rented for gatherings? It is a very big building?
Tarantino: I highly doubt we are going to have gun parties. There will be permanent alley ways for each
individual shooter. The reason the building is so long is so that each station would be about 80 feet long
for target practice.
Damiani: will there be any automatics?
Tarantino: I don’t know what you mean but nobody is going to bring a machine gun.
Damiani: okay, because I have heard some already in that area going off – it was on a holiday. Are you
going to do background checks if you get approval from the state?
Tarantino: anybody that comes in is going to have to have firearms ID card – the state does that. They
will probably have to be an NRA member.
Bradshaw: just so that I am clear; if I go in with my buddy who has the gun with the ID card I can shoot
his gun there can’t I? That is what they do at other facilities.
Tarantino: legally yes
Bradshaw: okay, I just want the board to be clear – it may not be only the person with the ID card
learning to use a gun.
Damiani: and you said the age was 21 – how are you going to police that?
Tarantino: we are going to have a range officer.
LaFata: being a member of Sure Shot; you are allowed to shoot at 12 years of age provided you are with
an adult. As far as having firearms ID card, Mr. Tarantino is correct. As far as anyone shooting, they are
19
allowed to shoot. They do have a range person; normally it is set up that there is a double door and in
between the double door is the where the range person would stay and you have your shooting
galleries. Probably the reason for the size and some of the other places have when they give their NRA
classes or shooting classes they have classroom forum where they have an instructor who comes in and
they will educate the people. As far as long arms go; 22’s and shotguns are permitted to be shot in an
indoor range.
Gurney: I remember years ago I had to get a permit to buy a pistol, never mind shooting it and
everything else. What exactly is a firearm ID card and how do you get one? What are the qualifications
to get one?
Tarantino: you have to apply to the police department. They do a background check, mental health
check and if you have firearms ID card you can buy a long rifle. You have to have a pistol permit to buy a
pistol. You are only allowed one every 30 days and you are only allowed to buy 2 pistol permits at a
time.
Gurney: does the Township or the police department have any supervisory position over the shooting
range or is it just you operate it the way you want to?
Kostbar: there is no township involvement that I have aware of.
Damiani: will the police be using it as a shooting range?
Tarantino: we will offer it to all the local police departments, yes
Zivin: right now the police department, from my understanding, goes to Woodbridge because I used to
supply them with the targets – the old signs.
Rasimowicz: have you gotten any input from the police department – either for or against it?
Tarantino: no – I mean I have spoken to a few local police officers who would like to use the range.
Rasimowicz: how many lanes did you say?
Tarantino: 14-15
Rasimowicz: and how many employees?
Kostbar: we are not sure yet.
Rasimowicz: 4 or 5?
Tarantino: if it is only going to be a range probably just 2.
Lupo: you said that the maximum caliber would be a 45. In the event someone comes in and wants to
shoot a 44 or a 500 magnum, how would you enforce that?
Tarantino: with the range officer.
20
Lupo: would you confiscate his gun or ask him to leave?
Tarantino: I don’t think we can confiscate his gun but we can ask him to leave.
Gurney: it says you are going to be selling guns and ammunition. Are there any qualifications of
supervision over the people who are going to be doing this?
Tarantino: yes, we would have to get a federal license.
Kostbar: we are not applying for that yet, your attorney has advised that we will have to come back
before this board to get that permission. There are a lot of restrictions over selling guns, so at the time
whatever those restrictions are we will comply.
Rasimowicz: the range officer is an employee of yours?
Tarantino: yes
Rasimowicz: okay so 14 or 15 lanes – 1 officer handles 15 lanes?
Tarantino: yes
Damiani: okay so he is going to be there from 8am – and why do we have to have a shooting range at
8am till 10pm? I’m not getting the math?
Tarantino: because people use it – there are ranges that are open 24/7.
Damiani: and you are only going to have 2 employees….at a time? How many hours?
Tarantino: it’s not going to be the same guy 7 days a week.
Damiani: okay, so we gave you approval for a use variance for the garage and if we give you the
approval for a shooting range, is there a guarantee you are actually going to do it or not do it like you did
for the garage?
Tarantino: well if Obama takes everyone’s guns away then we won’t do it, but if he doesn’t then we will
do it.
John Chadwick is sworn in and accepted as an expert witness in the field of Planning. I have an aerial
photograph; obviously a shooting range is not a run of the mill application. The sport in terms of
pistols, small rifles, etc is a recreation use. Many people engage in it. It is commercial recreation just
like tennis courts. It is located in an area that is probably ideally suited for it. We are next to a cemetery
and salvage yard. To the south of us is the land owned by the applicant, there are wetland and/or flood
plain. Across the street is the railroad. I think the one impact you might be concerned about is noise.
Noise is an unusual impact that you always have control over. It comes under you performance
standards. The building construction is going to have to be acoustical in and of itself but if for some
reason this building does not work – you shut it down. You have the power under the public law that
you have adopted which is the state standard for noise. In terms of the size of these guns – these things
21
are designed with a metal plate in the back and basically the bullets go into a hopper. If they get into a
caliber that is too big it will dent it. If they dent it then the bullets ricochet. Nobody is going to permit
someone coming in with a big rifle and start shooting up their facility and then they have ruined it. It is
almost self policing. It is a sport. The building size was designed, but we have not hired an interior
architect for this, there is some flexibility in the building. Probably the building will shrink but we are
not positive until it is designed inside. It is a site occupying a 12 acre site and it advances open space
and light and air. These are the special criteria that we have to meet at use variance. In terms of
negative impacts it is a small building. It is not a use that I would think anyone would say there is going
to be heavy traffic. The impact if any would be the noise aspect and that will be dealt with as part of site
plan and in the construction code. There isn’t anywhere in the master plan that addresses this issue, the
zoning ordinance does not address this issue. I don’t know of any zoning ordinance that specifically
authorizes a shooting range as a permitted use in any zone. In terms of the basic proof requirements I
think it is an ideally suited located because of what is around it and where it is. In terms of negative
impacts, I think we have addressed that. In terms of dealing with the Medici issues in terms of
reconciliation with your master plan and your zoning code – you can’t because it is silent. This use
replaces what I would consider a much more intensive use that has already been approved at this site
which was the auto repair shop. There you are talking about heavy commercial traffic, an operation that
is going to have an outside impact different than this. In terms of the reports I have read both
professional’s reports. With regard to the planning report I believe I have answered the questions asked
and/or the related issues. The site can accommodate 30 parking stalls; the shooting stations are 14-15.
I believe that is adequate parking. I researched the ITE manual – there is no standard. The building, in
terms of calculating; in terms of using a retail standard doesn’t make sense because 80% of the building
is the range. We are basically using a space about 30 feet in depth by 80 foot width. We still have
adequate parking. If you approve the use we are going to come back and show how these things work
with a detail interior design. If the building and the stations have to get smaller because of the parking
then that is what will have to be done. The comments from the engineer mostly deal with site plan
criteria and will be dealt with at that time.
Rasimowicz: are you looking for any variances or waivers at this point?
Chadwick: no
Rasimowicz: are you seeking a subdivision of some sort?
Chadwick: no subdivision; there would be a consolidation.
Rasimowicz: you plan shows a proposed sign?
Chadwick: variance – no, straight use variance.
Remsa: the only issue I raised was the parking and I was happy to hear that it is open for refinement at
site plan. I think we need to get a handle on it with 15 potential users. If the board does approve this I
would suggest maybe come back at site plan and show us what the 3 other facilities have.
In terms of the negative impacts, you find that there are really no significant impact to the surrounding
properties?
Lupo: Mr. Kostbar, is it the applicant’s intention to have food or snack bar?
22
Kostbar: vending machine is the only thing.
Klein: Mr. Chadwick brought up a point that nobody asked about – renting a firearm. Will you be doing
that?
Tarantino: we would like to yes.
Klein: would that be classified as retail? Would that be allowed with this approval?
Kostbar: that would be only if he got the license.
Klein: so if you get approved for this portion and you later get your license and come back for the retail
component and it is shot down would you still build it? I’m just wondering if you should not have it go
to vote until you can come back with the license and the retail portion.
Kostbar: they do not all have a retail component.
Gurney: I understand having to have an ID but why would you have to join the NRA?
Tarantino: well you wouldn’t but most ranges do require that.
Gurney: are you going to require it?
Tarantino: I don’t know yet.
Damiani: are you going to have lockers there to store weapons?
Tarantino: no
Damiani: will there be weapons stored there?
Tarantino: not unless I get the federal license for retail.
Damiani: the environmental officer had a letter pertaining to the smoke after they are fired. Is there
ventilation? How does that work?
Tarantino: all ranges have 100% ventilation with fresh air coming in. There are all kinds of rules and it
will be built to those specs.
Damiani: on your property now do you hunt? Do you target shoot now?
Tarantino: sometimes yes
Damiani: I think there are 2 houses on McKnight Ave., are they right next to your property?
And if shoot on that property where are you shooting now? In which direction are you shooting?
Chadwick: McKnight doesn’t connect up to Mott Ave. That is probably roughly ½ mile from this facility.
23
Damiani: I knew people that lived in those houses and they were always hearing gunshots so this
property has been used for target practice for many years.
Chadwick: it is quite a ways but this will be an inside facility.
Damiani: so if you get approval for this building are you going to still shoot outside?
Tarantino: no
Damiani: not privately, and the police know about it and everything because I experienced that in the
cemetery
Tarantino: I know
Damiani: on Palm Sunday
Tarantino: I know
Damiani: and it was automatics being shot because I heard them. It sounded like, I felt like I was in
Afghanistan. I don’t know how those people who are right alongside the cemetery do not hear those
gunshots because I was on that far side. I mean I’m glad that you are going to put it indoors because
they are dangerous I didn’t know whether to hit the ground or not and I yelled and nobody stopped
shooting.
Tarantino: the police were notified that we were going to be out there and they actually called us after
you called them.
Damiani: correct, and they said it was okay because they knew about it, but if I got shot…
Tarantino: well you won’t be getting that noise anymore because it will be in the building.
Damiani: where will the building be – closer to the cemetery or the labor building?
Tarantino: closer to the cemetery
Gurney: if you open to the general public how do require them to belong to an organization that is nongovernmental?
Tarantino: we didn’t say we were going to require them to belong to the NRA we said everyone is going
to be required to have a fire arms license/permit.
Gurney: but you said you may require
Tarantino: we may
Gurney: but how can you if it is opened to the general public
Tarantino: I’m pretty sure you can do anything you want in your own business.
24
Gurney: within the laws of the government and the township and joining the NRA is not a requirement,
it is not a law.
Rasimowicz: I would say that if you look favorably on the application that you prohibit outdoor shooting
on the property.
Schneider: will there be any kind of lead contamination from the shooting?
Tarantino: it will all be contained.
PUBLIC: Robert Drudy (sp?) my property backs up to Red & Black, probably closest to this area. Testified
in favor of the application.
Darrin Kutz – Buckelew Avenue resident testified in favor of the application.
Esther Gregory: testified in opposition of the application.
Steven Karstensen: testified in favor of the application.
Let the record show that there is no one else from the public wishing to be heard on this application. A
motion to close the public portion is made by Mr. Zivin, seconded by Mr. LaFata and approved by all
board members present.
A motion to approve the application is made by Mr. LaFata, seconded by Mr. Patel and approved by all
board members present.
MEMORIALIZATION: BA-5055-12 (Jamesburg Manor, LLC) is approved by all board members present.
PUBLIC: Michelle Arminio – 9 Nathaniel Street. Mr. Bradshaw, can you cite the statute you were
referring to before?
Bradshaw: it is in the Open Public Meetings Act itself which is at 10:4-12A (reads it into the record). You
can also check out Shim (sp?) versus Walsh Township Planning Board 298.
Arminio: I’ll take that but I believe that refers to the amount of time in that statute.
Bradshaw: I’ll read it to you.
Arminio: you don’t have to, I’m a little familiar with the law I’ll read it again. But Pfizer vs. Cedar Grove
or Verona which was a more recent case. They lost on trying to restrict the content of speech.
Bradshaw: nobody said anything about content of speech.
Arminio: well, I think you did by saying that you wanted something different to be said rather than the
same old thing. I think if people duplicated the same requests or discussion I think that the actual
principals of the open public meeting act was to give everybody a chance for free speech even if it is a
repeat of the prior person. So, I’ll bring some of the court cases also next time.
25
Damiani: we have had other meetings where we have had so many people who wanted to speak that it
was time consuming and repetitious.
Arminio: that is the whole point in having public engaged in democracy, by being able to
Damiani: but I can regulate the time?
Arminio: definitely, but you must regulate it for everyone and be fair.
Bradshaw: I don’t want to waste the board’s time debating this with you. I can only tell you that you are
off point and my advice to the board will be and is that they can limit the time and they can also indicate
to the public that if you are going to say the same thing please simply say “I’m going to say the same
thing, I agree with that person”. You can absolutely limit that, I gave you the case law please read it.
Now if you disagree with that you can always come up and say that or you can take us to court on that
issue. My advice to the board is different than yours, with all due respect.
Arminio: well that is a shame because the whole point of this is public participation. I would think that
all of you would encourage free speech and be happy. I know you are all here late, but the public is here
late to and everybody who comes here to participate is giving up their time as well. I appreciate all the
time you give here but this is a community that I am enamored with and I love it very much and I would
like to go my job as a citizen and my civic duty to be here and express free speech. This is a good
country we want to keep it that way and keep free speech open. I thank you all for your time and for
enduring the things that I say if you disagree but I appreciate it.
A motion to close the public portion is made, seconded, and approved by all board members present.
A motion to go into Executive Session is made by Mr. LaFata, seconded by Mr. Lupo and approved by all
board members present.
Respectfully Submitted,
Patti Williams,
Secretary for the Board
26
27