PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
May 12, 2011
Chairman Conard called the Planning Board meeting of May 12, 2011 to order at 7:30 p.m. All stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. The meeting took place in the courtroom of the Municipal Complex.
Chairman Conard announced the meeting has been duly advertised according to the Section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 231, Public Law 1975 (“Sunshine Law”).
ROLL CALL
Mayor Gloria McCauley – PresentGreg Burchette – Present
Committeeman
Frank DelCore – Arrived 7:40 p.m.
Steve Cohen, Secretary – Absent
Douglas Tomson – Absent / Arthur Stafford-Taylor - Present
Sam Conard, Chairman – Present
Steven Sireci, Jr., Vice Chairman – Absent
Marian Fenwick – Present
Tod Mershon (Alt. #1) – Absent
Daniel Marulli (Alt. #2) - Absent
Also present were Robert Ringelheim, A.I.C.P., Township Planner; Eric M. Bernstein, Esq., Board Attorney (Eric M. Bernstein, & Associates); Dave Hoder, P.E., Board Engineer (Maser Consulting, P.A.); and Lucille Grozinski, C.C.R.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES
· January 27, 2011
A motion to approve was made by Mr. Burchette, seconded by Ms. Fenwick.
Roll Call: Mr. Burchette – yes; Ms. Fenwick – yes; Mayor McCauley – yes. Motion carries.
· February 24, 2011
A motion to approve was made by Mr. Burchette, seconded by Mr. Stafford-Taylor.
Roll Call: Mr. Burchette – yes; Ms. Fenwick – yes; Mr. Stafford-Taylor – yes; Mayor McCauley – yes; Chairman Conard – yes. Motion carries.
· March 03, 2011
A motion to approve was made by Ms. Fenwick, seconded by Mayor McCauley.
Roll Call: Ms. Fenwick – yes; Mayor McCauley – yes. Motion carries.
· April 07, 2011
A motion to approve was made by Mr. Burchette, seconded by Mr. Stafford-Taylor.
Roll Call: Mr. Burchette – yes; Mr. Stafford-Taylor – yes; Ms. Fenwick – yes; Chairman Conard – yes. Motion carries.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESOLUTIONS
· County of Somerset/HIGGINS 11-PB-01-SRV
A motion to approve was made by Ms. Fenwick, seconded by Mr. Burchette.
Roll Call: Ms. Fenwick – yes; Mr. Burchette – yes; Mr. Stafford-Taylor – yes; Chairman Conard – yes. Motion carries.
PLANNING BOARD BUSINESS
None
SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORTS
None
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
None
CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES
None
PUBLIC HEARING – SUBDIVISIONS/SITE PLANS
· COUNTY OF SOMERSET/Constructural Dynamics, Inc. – File #11-PB-06-MRV – Block 174, Lot 155 – Long Hill Road.
William Robertson, Esq. appearing on behalf of the County of Somerset as Deputy County Counsel. In July 2010, I was here along with Mr. Boccino seeking Minor Subdivision approval for the property owned by Constructural Dynamics. As memorialized in the Resolution dated September 16, 2010, the Board granted that Minor Subdivision approval to allow the subdivision of a @905 acre parcel currently used for quarry purposes to be divided into 4 different lots. The large lot is about 335 acres and shown in dark green on the display map. There are 3 other smaller areas shown in light green. These are areas
the County is interested in purchasing but the owner was not certain to be able to convey them to the County. What took place was that the Resolution has a specific condition as the Land Use Law Provides which states that if the subdivision was not memorialized within 190 days, the approval would expire.
What took place was that 190 days expired during the time the owner was making that determination as to which lots they were interested in conveying. We are therefore, back before the Board seeking an extension but it is a reaffirmation of the minor subdivision previously granted.
The County is interested in purchasing approximately 396 out of the total 905 acres of that property. There is no question we will be purchasing 335 acres, represented as the large dark green portion. That portion is going to be merged with other properties designated as open space preserved by the County. We remain interested in purchasing the other portions but until we have certainty from the owner, we would like to continue to have the ability to perfect the subdivision as to those lots.
Thomas Boccino, P.P., was sworn in and gave the following testimony:
I am the Principal Planner for land acquisition for the County of Somerset. I oversee the County’s Open Space Preservation Program. The area that is proposed for subdivision and acquisition by the County property owned by the County and the Sourland Mountain Preserve which is owned by the County. At this time it totals approximately 4,000 acres. The yellow highlighted area is what the County wishes to acquire immediately. You can see how it connects to the existing parkland. This area also contains some interesting and unique natural features. The area to the north, just above the quarry pit is the location of Roaring Brook and Roaring Rocks. This area would be preserved in perpetuity by the County. There are some areas of wetlands and unique vegetation that the County would have some interest in preserving as well.
Chairman Conard asked what the timeline would be.
Mr. Robertson said we anticipate closing on the larger lot and possibly the smaller southern lot as soon as the Resolution is memorialized.
Mr. Ringelheim said I have talked with Mr. Robertson about putting the condition back on that for any of those lots that fail to close within 190 days, if they still wanted to proceed with the preservation in the future that they would come back to the Board.
Mr. Robertson said we would agree that was the condition of the previous Resolution and think it is a good idea since we are uncertain as to those 2 additional lots.
A motion for continuance approval was made by Mr. Burchette, seconded by Ms. Fenwick.
Roll Call: Mr. Burchette – yes; Ms. Fenwick – yes; Mr. Stafford-Taylor – yes; Mayor McCauley – yes; Chairman Conard – yes. Motion carries.
· Mary, Mother of God Church – File #11-PB-05-MSR – Block 151, Lot 12.01 – 157 South Triangle Road.
Henry Rzemieniewski, Esq., representing the applicant said this is an application to open up a new driveway on the Mary, Mother of God Church property. At the present time as you face the there is a double driveway going in. South of the property is an exit only driveway. The purpose of this application is to also open up a new driveway to the very north of the property to ease the traffic.
Father Sean Broderick, Pastor of Mary, Mother of God Church was sworn in and gave the following testimony in response to Mr. Rzemieniewski questions:
The reason we are asking for the additional driveway is to ease the traffic flow. As you go into the parking lot if you park on the northern side you have to come across the incoming traffic and exit out the other side. It would be much easier to have an exit on that side.
Mr. Rzemieniewski said the vehicles would enter the parking lot using the center driveway, as they do now but instead of having to go all the way across the front of the and all the way down to the southern exit, those in the left-hand side of the parking lot could exit to the north. That would allow for a smooth reasonable traffic flow.
Ms. Fenwick asked, are you still continuing to use the Triangle School for parking as well?
Fr. Broderick said yes, for overflow parking.
Ms. Fenwick said I have seen how the traffic is on a Saturday evening and Sunday morning. It would definitely be a better circulation pattern.
Robert B. Heibell, P.E. & L.S. of Van Cleef Engineering was sworn in and gave the following testimony:
We had hoped to have been done with the construction of the by now but since we are still undergoing construction we thought now would be a good time to request this driveway. The driveway itself eliminates 3 parking spaces but with the additional parking spaces with our agreement with Triangle School, we still have more than we are required to have. There is a total of 800 sq. ft. of impervious surface caused by the driveway. Back about 8 or 9 years ago we received a variance for impervious surface up to 44%. After we built the gym and went back with the current configuration of the gym we dropped that to 41.7%. This would move it up to 42% but still less than granted. We built a detention basin to take in the totality of impervious surface.
I submitted the application to the Somerset Union Soil Conservation District and am in receipt of a project exemption form from them. The project does not disturb 5,000 sq. ft. of property and is exempt from approval. I also submitted the application for D&R Canal Commission approval. Today I received a letter from D&R. They reviewed it previously and granted prior approval and say no prior approval is warranted at this time. We submitted the application to the Somerset County Planning Board. They in turn also approved the project without any conditions.
There are 3 internal letters to review. The Fire Marshal has no comments at this time but I think he would enjoy having another access to the property. I do not believe there are any outstanding conditions in his report. Mr. White’s report had several questions in it. He asked that Father explain why the driveway is needed at this time, as Father has done. The former circle in front of the Church will be soded.
I believe this is a matter that will help the patrons of the Church and the public safety. I do not believe there are any aspect of the application whereby it creates any detriments to any agency.
Open to the Public
None
A motion to approve application #11-PB-05-MSR was made by Mr. Burchette, seconded by Ms. Fenwick.
Roll Call: Mr. Burchette – yes; Ms. Fenwick – yes; Mr. Stafford-Taylor – yes; Committeeman DelCore – yes; Mayor McCauley – yes; Chairman Conard – yes. Motion carries
· Arun & Deena MALHOTRA – File #11-PB-07-MSRV – Block 202, Lot 7.01 – 124 Hillsborough Road.
Arun and Deena Malhotra were sworn in and gave the following testimony:
Mrs. Malhotra said the reason for our application is to build a 3-car, 2-story garage and storage at 124 Hillsborough Road. We are currently a document processing company and do document processing, data scanning and date entry in the actual building. Currently the work is being done in a single story building that was originally a commercial property that we purchased in June, 2010. The building we are proposing would be a 48 ft. x 48 ft. 2-story building. Currently at ARDEM, we have 6 full-time employees. These employees park in a graveled parking area. The come in off of the east side of the building and enter the main office. The building we are proposing would not be a working facility. It is simply meant for potential vans that would be stored there and storage of documents which will strictly be paper. We would still continue to receive documents from our clients at the existing building on the east side of it.
There was a question raised about the swimming pool on the property. The property is solely used for our business. No one lives there. Originally it was part of the existing structure from the farm around it that we have not taken out. I will now ask Bob Heibell to give you the specifics of the site plan.
Robert B. Heibell, P.E. & L.S. of Van Cleef Engineering was sworn in and gave the following testimony:
This site is of the former Children’s Workshop which was a daycare center for many years and then may have changed ownership once or twice after that. This property is currently in the Corporate Development Zone. Should the pending ordinance be introduced and adopted, the property will actually go to the AG District, a 10 acre Agricultural Zone.
Robert Ringelheim, Township Planner said I would like to correct that. The zoning was approved last night to change the zoning to the AG Zone. However, the Applicant is fine because they submitted the application prior to that change and in the interim on May 5th, the Time of Decision Rule changed by the State has kicked in. What that says is when an Applicant submits an application, the town cannot change the zoning requirement during the process of going to the Board. As a result, this application is still being considered as if it were in the CDZ District.
Eric Bernstein, Esq. said while the Township Committee may have adopted this Ordinance at Tuesday night’s meeting, the Ordinance does not become effective until approval and publication. I do not believe it has been published yet in the Hillsborough Beacon by the Clerk’s office. So the change to the AG District is still not technically in effect.
I would like to compare the requirements of the Corporate Development Zone vs. the Agricultural Zone. Why this becomes and important aspect is because I am going to tell the Board about ‘c’ variances. If the Ordinance was in effect right now, as an
Agricultural use then the use itself would require a ‘d’ variance and we would be before the Board of Adjustment. Having said
that; the lot in itself is some 1.57 acres. The Deed goes to the center line on Hillsborough Road. Hillsborough Road at this particular junction has a right-of-way of 60 ft. Part of this application dedicates 30 ft. of property as is required across the front of the lot to the town of Hillsborough. The lot area goes from 1.574acres and gets diminished to 1.3977 acres. If we had to adhere to the 50 acres requirement and various setback requirements under the Corporate Development Zone, you would not be able to build a flagpole on this lot. Having said that, the existing structure is being used by the Applicants in the Corporate Development Zone.