February 6, Minutes

Transcription

1 February 6, Minutes TOWNSHIP OF DENVILLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES February 6, 2008 The Board of Adjustment of the Township of Denville held its regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, February 6, The meeting was held in the Municipal Building, 1 St. Mary's Place and commenced at 7:00 P.M. Chairperson Arthur Korn presided. Secretary Bowditch read NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING. ROLL CALL: Present: Arthur Korn, Sally Dankos, Roger Spiess, Kevin Scollans, Mark Wilson, Nick Saccamano, Frank Passucci Absent: James Rodimer, John Murphy Prof. Present: Larry Wiener, Esq.. Nicholas Rosania, PE, PP MINUTES: December 19, 2007 Motion to adopt the above-mentioned minutes as submitted was made by Mbr. Scollans, seconded by Mbr. Dankos and unanimously approved by all Members eligible to vote. January 2, 2008 Motion to adopt the above-mentioned minutes as submitted was made by Mbr. Scollans, seconded by Mbr. Dankos and unanimously approved by all Members eligible to vote. PURCHASING: Motion to pay voucher submitted by Wiener & McMahon, dated January 25, 2008, subject to the availability of funds, was made by Mbr. Scollans and seconded by Mbr. Spiess and unanimously approved by all Members present. PROFESSIONAL COMMENTS: RESOLUTIONS: BA 07-37: David McDonald BA 07-39: Patricia Grimes Block 40522, Lot 55 Block 61003; Lot Franklin Road 83 Cedar Lake West Motion to adopt the memorializing resolution for the above-mentioned properties was made by Mbr. Dankos and seconded by Mbr. Wilson. Roll Call: Ayes Dankos, Wilson, Korn, Spiess, Scollans BA 07-38: Natalie Betz Block 51008; Lot 9 30 Lakewood Drive Natalie Betz (30 Lakewood Drive) and Donald Betz (Point Pleasant Beach, NJ) were present and reminded they remain under oath. It was explained that revised drawings were provided and a resolution of approval had been drafted. Mr. Denzler wrote a report based on the revised drawings. Mr. Betz explained Mr. Denzler s report stated information was lacking, but an additional French drain and additional shrubbery was shown and the pavers were no longer close to the property line. The report stated more detail was needed, especially regarding the fence and grading of the patio, which he could give to the Board Members. Mr. Wiener stated Mr. Denzler s report addressed the deviations from what the Board had approved based on the resolution. Mr. Betz stated the staircase, which was added to the revised plans, would be removed from the drawings. There was a discussion about the actual reduction of the deck, which differed between the plans and the resolution. Chr. Korn stated he would like to have a complete application, so there is no further negotiation of this application. There was a heated discussion between Chr. Korn and Mr. Betz regarding the changes to the plans and Mr. Denzler s report. Mr. Wiener believed that correct plans should be provide before the resolution is adopted, which would avoid mistakes being made. Mr. Betz believed everything shown on the plans was per the last public hearing, except for the addition of the staircase, which would be removed. Chr. Korn emphatically disagreed. Mr. Wiener stated the resolution could be placed on the February 20, 2008 meeting so that additional modifications could be made. Mr. Spiess agreed that there are discrepancies as stated in Mr. Denzler s report.

2 February 6, Minutes PUBLIC HEARINGS: BA 07-43: Raymond Ambrosi Block 70301, Lot Alpine Drive Patricia Ambrosi and Raymond Ambrosi (both of 23 Alpine Drive) were present and sworn in. They are proposing to construct a 6 x 19 addition onto their existing bedroom, which would have a 3 x 4 corner of the proposed addition would be located within the setback. The closest neighbor was approximately 60 feet away from the addition. Mbr. Spiess liked the application. Mbr. Wilson liked the application and believed this was the best place for the addition because of the existing slope on the side of the property. Mbr. Dankos liked the application. Chr. Korn agreed the adjacent neighbor was far enough away. This application was opened to the public, seeing no one, was closed. Mr. Wiener confirmed the property is unusually shaped and the house is located toward the front of the lot. The required side yard setback for this zone was 30 feet and the addition would be 26.2 feet. The existing house already violates the side yard setback at 28.2 feet. The proposed construction would follow the existing sideline of the house, which is angled on the property. There were slopes to the rear of the property. A motion to approve this application was made by Mbr. Scollans and seconded by Mbr. Dankos. Roll Call: Ayes Scollans, Dankos, Korn, Spiess, Wilson, Saccamano, Passucci BA/SP/FSP 07-41: Special Additions Block 40302, Lot 1 3 Astro Place Ted Einhorn, Esq. (165 East Main Street, Denville) represented the applicant and explained that Mr. Lombreglia, the owner, could not be in attendance. He then explained the application was originally filed with the Planning Board, but after Mr. Denzler reviewed the application, it was determined that a use variance for an intensification of a non-conforming use was required. The original non-conforming use was granted in 2005 to allow for a small retail operation on site. Mr. Einhorn explained they are proposing to construct a 7000 sf addition, to the existing 20,000 sf building, which would extend the rear of the building to the east. A side yard variance and variance for the number of parking spaces were being requested. Mr. Wiener stated for the record, he resides in the Regency of Denville development, but was not within 200 feet of this property. He stated the Association is not taking a position on this application. He believed he could be impartial and did not think there was a conflict of interest with his representing the Board. There were no comments or objections. Frank Valente, architect (166 Hillcrest Drive, Denville) was present and sworn in. He presented his credentials and was accepted as an expert witness. Using sheet A2, first floor plans submitted to the Board, Mr. Valente reviewed the existing building, which is a one-story building, approximately 200 x 100, with two existing entrances. He believed the structure is in good condition. He then reviewed the proposed expansion, which would keep with the existing front and back. The proposed addition would be 7000 sf, 5000 sf for warehouse space and 2000 sf for office space, for unknown tenants. Mr. Valente presented exhibit A-1, a colorized rendering of the rear, front, left and right side elevations, dated 6/25/07. He reviewed this exhibit, explaining the area with the blue lines around it shows the new addition. He noted there will be a new entrance in the front, the left side elevation will not change, the right side elevation would have the same façade as exists, with the overhead door and one small exit door, and the rear would possibly have one or two additional small exit doors. He believed the proposed addition would be keeping with the characteristics and aesthetics of the existing building. He confirmed there would be no communication towers on the building, which could be added as a condition of approval. Mr. Wiener asked about the HVAC units. Mr. Valente believed they would be at a location on the roof that would be hidden. Mbr. Wilson confirmed the proposed addition would be placed over existing pavement and the overhead door would not have a loading dock. This application was opened to the public for questions of this witness. Phil Mattia (8 Jade Circle) was present. He asked if there was a proposal for additional parking spaces. Harvey Kellman (94 MacKenzie Lane South) was present. He asked if there would be lighting on the building.

3 February 6, Minutes Ray Kurland (98 MacKenzie Lane South) was present. He asked if the new addition would allow retail space. It was confirmed there was no intent for an expansion of the retail use. Mr. Wiener confirmed the retail use was limited to the space that TriState Tile and Stone had occupied. Thomas Graham, PE (Dykstra Walker Design Group, 21 Bowling Green Parkway, Hopatcong) was present and sworn in. He has previously been accepted as an expert witness. Mr. Graham reviewed the lot, which is 2.96 acres, rectangular in shape, and meets all, but the lot depth requirements for the I2 zone. He believed the lot is able to support the existing outdoor storage, the building and the 31 delineated parking spaces (with 31 proposed more nondelineated spaces). He stated there is sufficient parking on site. Mr. Graham presented exhibit A-2, Site Layout, Grading & Drainage Plan, colored sheet 3 of 4, dated 7/10/07, and used it to review the proposal. He explained the brown color represents the addition, the yellow color represents the existing building, the green color is vegetation and the grey color is pavement. He confirmed they are not proposing to extend the pavement or change any vegetation to the rear of the property and the addition would be within the paved limits. He stated there is a part of the lot, next to the Regency at Denville property that is within the wetlands and associated wetland areas. A letter of interpretation (LOI) from NJDEP stated the wetlands and buffer areas do not need NJDEP permits and they are staying away from these areas. The addition would be located on the other side of the property. Mr. Graham addressed the proposed drainage, explaining the new addition and landscaping would be placed over existing pavement. There would be a slight reduction of impervious surface and a slight reduction in storm water runoff. They are proposing to remove two (2) inlets and a section of pipe, which would be replaced with one (1) inlet because of the change in the pavement area. He explained the system would discharge toward Franklin Avenue and would be a positive impact to the existing system because it would be cleaner runoff. Mr. Graham believed this was a straightforward industrial building addition. The parking was addressed, stating that 87 parking spaces are required and 58 spaces are proposed. The original plan in 2005 showed parking spaces in the rear of the lot, which were not delineated and would not be needed even with the proposed addition. There would be enough parking in the front of the building for all the employees and still have some spaces left opened. Using the plans submitted, Mr. Graham reviewed the lighting, noting the existing lights and the proposed new light on the corner of the proposed addition. Mr. Graham reviewed the signage, stated the existing signage is mounted on the building and the new tenants would have to comply with the signage for the I2 zone or they would have to get variance relief. He then reviewed the existing loading area with the sloped floor, which would not be changed, but the existing overhead door would be moved to the addition area. Mr. Graham addressed Mr. Denzler s 9/21/07 report, confirming the required improvements from the 2005 resolution were in place, including the Police Department s concern that all handicapped places had signs. He believed the site would have safe circulation for both traffic and pedestrians and would continue to operate in a safe manner. The access to the addition would be similar to what exists. The applicant agreed to apply for Title 39. Mr. Rosania confirmed the lighting would be concealed source. Mr. Graham stated they would be similar to what exists, which is wall-packed lighting, downward illuminated with a low wattage bulb. Mr. Rosania confirmed there would be a decrease in impervious coverage and he had no drainage concerns. He believed there could be significantly more parking on site, but agreed that the deferment for the spaces in the rear would be okay. He noted the deferred parking, if needed, would be facing northwest, away from the residential zone, which is also uphill from the lot. There was approximately 300 to 450 feet away of a wooded buffer. Mr. Rosania stated even though the lot is small, the floor area ratio (FAR) would be less than the allowable 25%. He stated the I2 zone allows for manufacturing and the use variance for retail was previously granted for an area in the existing building, not in the proposed. He asked how this would be maintained as TriState Tile and Stone is no longer a tenant. Mr. Wiener believed the Use variance resolution was very specific on what was approved and allowed. Mr. Einhorn believed the new tenant would have to comply with the previous resolution. Mr. Graham confirmed the parking stall size would be 9 x 18, with larger handicapped spaces. Mr. Rosania recommended the Board allow the deferred parking. Mbr. Spiess asked for the assignment of use proposed in the new addition and what would happen with parking should the ratio of use be changed. Mr. Graham stated the proposed ratio would be consistent with the remainder of the building and it was not done for COAH or parking relief. Mr. Wiener confirmed the ratio would be a condition of approval. Mr. Graham stated they would have to show that parking could be accommodated on site should the ratio of use

4 February 6, Minutes change. Mbr. Spiess confirmed the number of handicapped spaces that would be required and provided. Mr. Graham stated the ADA requires 4 handicapped spaces for the 87 required spaces, which would be provided on site. All would meet the van accessibility code. Mbr. Saccamano believed the addition would be good, as it would be covering up a messy parking area. Mbr. Scollans was concerned about the proposed lighting. Mr. Graham stated they would be keeping the lighting consistent with what already exists and only security lighting would be needed at night. Mbr. Scollans asked if soil samples had been done. Mr. Valente explained a structural engineer would be on site should this application be approved and before requesting a building permit. He stated it would be corrected at that time if needed. Mbr. Scollans asked how the impervious coverage was being reduced? Mr. Graham referenced sheet 2 of 4, stating the landscaping would be extended across the front of the new addition, which is existing pavement. It was a minor reduction in impervious coverage. The existing storm drain was reviewed, confirming that no retention was proposed. Mr. Graham stated there would be some reduction of surface water runoff, because a part of the existing parking lot was being removed. Chr. Korn asked if water retention shouldn t be done, to which Mr. Rosania stated there was no mandate to do this, but did recommend that the roof drains tie into the storm drains. Mr. Graham confirmed they had problems with the previous septic system and believed more water should not be put into the ground. Chr. Korn asked about timing on the lights, to which the answer was unknown. Mr. Rosania believed the site was relatively dark, but it was good to have security lighting. Mbr. Korn reviewed the employee hours as being Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday 9 am to 5 pm, Wednesday 12 pm to 8 pm and Saturday 9 am to 1 pm. He then asked if there would be landscape buffers provided. Mr. Graham stated there would be plantings in the front, but not in the rear, which is a wooded area. Mr. Wiener confirmed they are not proposing or asking for outdoor storage behind the building. Mr. Graham confirmed there is an existing outdoor storage area enclosed with opaque slates. Mr. Einhorn confirmed what was there now will remain and no additional outdoor storage is proposed. Mr. Wiener asked about where the rooftop mechanicals would be located? Mr. Graham stated it would be on the roof, but would not be visible from the roadway. They would comply with the noise regulations. This application was opened to the public for questions of this witness. Ray Kurland (98 MacKenzie Lane South) was present. He asked if there would be additional traffic because he was concerned with noise and light. Mr. Graham explained there was not a specific tenant. There is little truck traffic now. Mr. Kurland asked what the truck delivery times were and the proposed hours of lighting. Mr. Graham believed some security lighting that was on for 24 hours was needed on site, and the remainder of the lighting would be as currently exists. Chr. Korn asked if Mr. Kurland had issues with the existing lighting, to which the answer was no. Mr. Wiener asked if some lighting could be motion sensitive and if the truck deliveries could be limited to certain hours. Mr. Graham referenced exhibit A-3, to show the wetland delineation from the Jade Wood project (Regency at Denville) and used it to show that, as the addition gets closer to the side yard, the buffer between the extension gets larger. Mr. Einhorn stated the security lights would be on all the time, but the stanchion lights could be turned off one hour after the last business closed. Phil Mattia (8 Jade Circle) was present. He asked what would happen if a condition in the resolution was not followed. Mr. Wiener stated it would then be a zoning violation. Mr. Mattia asked why the parking spaces should be defer. Mr. Graham explained that under the existing uses, the additional parking is not required, but if the uses change in the future, the parking may be needed. He believed there was a sufficient buffer should parking be needed in the rear. Mr. Rosania agreed. Mr. Einhorn stated the deferred parking was proposed to face away from the residential area. Harvey Kellman (94 MacKenzie Lane South) was present. He lives behind this lot and can see the safety lights from his deck. He would like to have more vegetation planted in the rear of the lot so the lighting could not be seen. Mr. Einhorn stated he did not believe it was necessary based on the expert testimony. Mbr. Dankos asked if the building was there when Mr. Kellman purchased his home. Mr. Kellman stated he purchased his house in the summer months. Timothy Fidler (6 Jade Circle) was present. He asked where there was access to water in case of a fire. Mr. Graham stated there was a fire hydrant on Astro Place and confirmed they would follow all building codes for fire suppression when the tenant is determined. Mr. Fidler stated he could also see the lights to the rear. The public portion was closed for this time. Mr. Rosania asked if the outside lights were concealed source or exposed. Mr. Einhorn stated the homes at Regency are at a higher elevation than this property and should not be able to see

5 February 6, Minutes the lights, but agreed to a condition that the Township Engineer is satisfied that the lighting is proper. P. David Zimmerman, PP (21 Western Ave., Morristown) was present and sworn in. He presented his credentials and was accepted as an expert witness. He presented exhibit A-4, an aerial photo with the existing building shown in red. Mr. Zimmerman reviewed the variances, stating the lot depth is a pre-existing condition. The required rear yard setback is 100 feet and the existing building is at feet, which the addition would maintain. He stated the existing building is approximately 20 years old and Regency at Denville was not there when it was built. He believed the 5-foot shortage could be considered de minimus, as the area to the rear is wooded and a wetlands area would not allow anything to be built. He believed that by granting the variance, there would not be an impact on the surrounding neighbors. The shape of the property and the existing structure could be considered a hardship and would go towards the C1 criteria. He believed the addition was appropriate for the property. Mr. Zimmerman explained the variance for the proposed side yard setback. The lot to the east has parking up to the common property line and the property in question would be providing landscaping between two parking areas. He believed this was a C1 and C2 variance based on the property and the position of the existing building. It would not have a detrimental effect to grant the variance. Mr. Zimmerman stated the FAR, including the new addition, would be 20.9% where 25% is allowed. He stated this was the smallest FAR of any building on Astro Place and what is proposed could be considered appropriate. Mr. Zimmerman addressed the parking variance, where 58 spaces are being provided and 87 spaces are required. He believed this could be considered a function of the current use of the property. Using exhibit A-1, he stated the majority of the existing building is for Special Additions and it was his opinion that the proposed parking was adequate. Mr. Zimmerman addressed the negative criteria, stating there would be no impact to the zone plan or the master plan and did not believe this would impact the zoning of the area either. This application is unique and the variances being requested were relatively minor. With regard to parking, he has never found more than 12 cars on the site at one time, which leads him to believe there is an ample amount of parking. Mr. Zimmerman addressed the Use variance, stating this was a technical variance because the expansion was for a permitted use. This property has shown itself to be suited for this use and there would be no negative impact on the public good, the surrounding neighborhood, the master plan or the zoning ordinance. The property is zoned for industrial use, which is what is being proposed. He believed the benefits of granting this variance outweigh the detriments. Mr. Rosania stated that Mr. Zimmerman had provided a good review of Mr. Denzler s report. Mr. Wiener commented what is on site is not a true retail use, to which Mr. Zimmerman agreed. He stated it was more like a factory outlet use and if the Board approved this application the new space would be for permitted uses in the zone. Mr. Wiener confirmed with Mr. Zimmerman that he believed the 2005 resolution allowing for the retail use in Tri State Tile and Stone provided reasonable guidelines for the Township officials. Chr. Korn asked about the items in the northwest corner shown on exhibit A-4. Mr. Einhorn stated the testimony was that anything there now would remain. Mr. Wiener asked if Jade Circle was shown on the aerial photo. Mr. Zimmerman explained the aerial shows Astro Place and Stewart Court, both industrial areas. He stated the closest townhouse was approximately 500 feet away from this property, per the Township tax maps. This application was opened for questions from the public. Timothy Fidler (6 Jade Circle) was present. He asked when the aerial photo was taken, to which Mr. Zimmerman stated Mr. Fidler showed the Board where his patio is located on the aerial, which he believed was closer than 500 feet. He had concerns about the lighting, as there appeared to be more of a buffer as shown on the aerial than there really was. He stated that he is able to see lights on the back of the building. Mr. Zimmerman believed he sees the illumination of the back wall by security lights, not the light fixtures themselves. He stated the three stanchion lights will be turned off one hour after close of business, but there is a need for security lighting. The public portion was closed. Mr. Einhorn believed the testimony was put forth on the record. It was a modest expansion for a permitted use in the I2 zone. The industrial park has been there for at least 20 years. There would be no negative impact to granting these variances and the use variance is a technical requirement.

6 February 6, Minutes Mbr. Spiess agreed this was a good application that would be made better with the restrictions set forth. 1. No cell tower would be built on the property 2. New handicapped stalls would have adequate signage per the Police Department requirements. 3. The new addition would be divided sf office space and 5000 sf warehouse space and if this changes, then they would comply with the parking requirements or make application to the Board for relief. 4. The new tenant in the retail area would abide by the 2005 resolution. 5. The roof drains would tie into the ground drains. 6. There would be no additional open outdoor storage on site. 7. Truck deliveries would be between 7 AM and 7 PM only. 8. Lighting in the rear would be turned off one hour after close of business 9. Lighting would be concealed source and downward pointing, to be changed if necessary in the field. 10. Security lighting would be provided to the rear, possibly motion sensors. Mr. Rosania believed the security lighting should be guided by Police Department recommendations. He believed the proposed lighting would be modest. Mr. Wiener stated it could be left to the approval of the Township Engineer. Mr. Wiener asked about forklift operations, to which it was agreed that would also be limited to between 7 AM and 7 PM. Mbr. Wilson confirmed the time of deliveries could be stipulated at this time without knowing who the tenant will be, to which the answer was yes. Motion to approve this application, with the conditions stated, was made by Mbr. Spiess and seconded by Mbr. Scollans. Roll Call: Ayes Spiess, Scollans, Dankos, Korn, Wilson, Saccamano, Passucci OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS: Motion to approve the proposed new application was made by Mbr. Dankos and seconded by Mbr. Scollans. Roll Call: Ayes Dankos, Scollans, Korn, Spiess, Wilson, Saccamano, Passucci Mr. Korn reviewed the Planning Board meeting he attended in January. Motion to go into closed session to discuss the Yuliano application was made by Mbr. Dankos and seconded by Mbr. Scollans. Roll Call: Ayes Dankos, Scollans, Korn, Spiess, Wilson, Saccamano, Passucci CLOSED SESSION MINUTES to follow when approved. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn. Kathryn Bowditch, Administrative Secretary Date Approved