The West Amwell Township
Planning Board meeting was called to order at
Attorney William Shurts followed
by the Flag salute. Attorney Shurts
stated the meeting has been properly advertised and is being held in compliance
with the Open Public Meetings Act. The
meeting was recorded via digital recording system and copy of CD is on file in
the Planning Board Office.
ATTENDANCE:
Roll call on attendance: John Dale-present, Bernard Meader-present, Thomas
Molnar-present,
Nancy Palladino-present, Sean
Pfeiffer (Alt. #2)-present, Joan Smith-present, Joan VanDerVeen-present
Absent: Alex
Professionals Present: William Shurts, Attorney; Robert Clerico,
Engineer;
Anthony Mercantante, Planner
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHAIRPERSON
Mr. Bernard Meader served as
Acting Chairperson for the meeting due to the absence of Chairman Ent and Vice
Chairman Shute.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES/BILL LST:
Regular Minutes –
Regular Minutes – from previously
submitted draft from current
ordinance detailing uses to include…”.
Roll call: Dale-aye, Molnar-abstain, Palladino-aye,
Pfeiffer-aye, Smith-aye, VanDerVeen-aye,
Meader-aye. Motion carried.
Bill List –
PUBLIC HEARING
TAMKE TREE EXPERTS (DOUGLAS HUNT) – PRELIMINARY SITE
PLAN APPLICATION – BLOCK 8
The public hearing commenced
at
Mr. Bisogno advised that the
applicant has submitted revised plans dated
Mr. Bisogno provided an
overview of the application. Applicant
proposing the construction of two flex warehouses (8700 sq. ft/8400 sq. ft) in
the rear of the property. Tamke Tree
will use approximately 2400 sq. ft. in the front building and remaining areas
will be available for rent to approximately eight to 10 tenants. This revised submission has been downscaled
from the previous plan submitted in July 2002 due to the presence of wetlands
on the property. In addition to site
plan approval, applicant is in need of variance relief for rear yard setback.
Applicant is also proposing to provide an easement to adjoining property owner,
Globe Associates,
Attorney Shurts reviewed the
affidavits of service and proof of publication pertaining to this public
hearing. Mr. Bisogno affirmed that the notices to property owners were
identical to the notice published in the newspaper. Said documents were entered into the record
as Exhibit A-2. The application was
marked as
Minutes –
Page 2
Exhibit A-1. Colored rendition of the site plan (last rev.
date
Robert F. Lorentz, P.E.,
appearing on behalf of the applicant, and Douglas Hunt, applicant, were sworn
in by Attorney Shurts. Mr. Lorentz
provided his credentials and was accepted as an expert witness.
Mr. Lorentz referred to
Exhibit A-3, the site plan, noting the changes made in response to Engineer
Clerico’s previous recommendations to include zoning and required setback data,
stream encroachment and wetlands designation information. Mr. Lorentz attested that the proposed use of
the property is the same as the original concept with some exceptions. The parking is reduced but is in conformance with
ordinance requirements, each rental space area consists of 1,050 sq. ft., each
unit has garage door and entry door, and each space has two regular parking
spaces. There will also be parking
located in the rear. The property is
primarily heavily wooded; some maintained lawn
will be at the access to the site; access will be through a paved drive portion
shared with neighboring property, Globe Associates.
In response to Engineer
Clerico’s questioning, Mr. Lorentz advised that wetlands delineation has been
done for the two streams on the property by the DEP and an LOI has been issued
and a transition waiver has been granted.
Mr. Lorentz further advised that three of the seven acres of the
property will be used and four acres remain open at this time. This proposal shows a common proposed
easement for a water tank for the fire department. Mr. Lorentz advised that the variance request
for rear year setback is due to the existence of wetlands on the property; the
building has been shifted closer to the property line but there is considerable
separation from Globe Associates. The
proposed septic system will be in the north easterly corner of the
property. There will be a freestanding
sign at the point of entry (near
Engineer Clerico noted that
some recommendations were made in regard to design standards for the initial
application back in March 2003. It was
agreed that this application is a different plan and, therefore, design waivers
referenced in the most recent ordinance should be reviewed relative to this new
submission.
Engineer Clerico advised
applicant’s professionals that the design standards outlined in the new
ordinance need to be identified and requests for relief, if any, need to be set
forth. Some items for review include
parking and sign requirements. Engineer
Clerico will re-review the application relative to this issue.
In response to questioning by
Ms. Smith, Mr. Lorentz advised that there will be blacktop to the buildings in
the parking area and parking bumpers will be installed. Engineer Clerico noted
that design relief may be needed for the parking spaces in front of the
overhead doors.
Mr. Lorentz confirmed a
discrepancy with scale dimensions on the plan as pointed out by Mr. Pfeiffer
and will make the appropriate correction.
Planner Mercantante expressed
his opinion that a sign variance may be in need and expressed concern with the
gravel area surrounding the storage area as to drainage issues. It was suggested that the area be regraded to
prevent unwanted substances from draining into the basin. Mr. Hunt stated that this area would be a
temporary site for natural materials, i.e. woods chips/logs until transfer of
same and that no hazardous materials would be stored in this area. In response to questioning, Mr. Hunt advised
that Globe Associates is acceptable to the setback requested.
Mr. Lorentz provided an update
on approvals from outside agencies. It
was suggested that formal approval updates from the NJDEP, D&R Canal
Commission, Department of Health, and Hunterdon County Soil Conservation
District be provided for the next meeting.
Minutes –
Page 3
An error in the spelling of a
property owner (Slack) on the plan was noted.
It was confirmed that the notice to the property owner contained the
correct spelling. Correction to be made
to the plan.
Well testing data as
reflected in correspondence from Sam Stotholff was discussed. Mr. Lorentz advised that Mr. Stotholff is
familiar with the neighboring properties and has well information for these
properties, Breen and Globe properties, and asserts a good yield for both
wells. Mr. Lorentz stated that the
applicant’s proposed use is non-water intensive, and it is likely that the
units would not be occupied for most of the day. Concerns were expressed about water usage
and it was recommended that conditions be imposed as to what uses would be
allowed by the tenants, i.e. washing vehicles, etc.
Planner Mercantante expressed
concern with the parking availability for tenants in the event tenants lease
more than the minimum square footage space and suggested that conditions be
imposed that spaces be divided evenly amongst the tenants to ensure that each
tenant has a fair share of office and parking spaces.
Douglas Hunt, President of
Tamke Tree Service, provided an overview of his landscape business. This proposed site would be a satellite
office to their main office. Mr. Hunt
advised the construction of the buildings is in the preliminary phase, however,
he is considering masonry buildings with steel, structural panels, neutral
colors, with pitched roofs. He
anticipates having tenants that would be involved in small contracting work (tradesmen)
and stated that a restriction on office space could be imposed in the lease
agreements limiting office space to 40-50%.
There will be some pesticides and fertilizer stored on site (inside) for
which they will meet the appropriate regulations imposed by the State. There is an agreement with Globe Associates
for the sharing of the expenses of the driveway and the water tanks for the
fire department. Easement agreement with
Globe Associates was entered into the record and marked as Exhibit A-4.
In response to questioning by
Engineer Clerico, there will be no other outside storage areas and a condition
of same will be set forth in any approval.
Mr. Hunt advised that he spoke with Fire Chief Ent and he is satisfied
with 50,000 gallon tank capacity, however, he has nothing in writing. In
response to questioning by the Board as to the parking of trucks outside, Mr.
Hunt advised he is not sure what type of tenants or size of trucks would be on
the premises, however, the site will not accommodate semi-trucks. Any
deliveries by semi-trucks would be to off-load.
Mr. Hunt does not plan to restrict parking outside or hours of operation
due to the fact that the facility is designed to accommodate tradesmen.
Public Comments:
John Cronce , resident of Rt. 179, neighboring property owner,
expressed concern with the hours of operation. Mr. Hunt responded that he does
not want to restrict tradesman to certain hours. Mr. Hunt advised that his business has an average
of five trucks in the other office that leave every day. The largest truck is an 80,000 gvw log truck and
the smallest is a rack truck. The large
truck will be shared between his office and main office. In response to questioning about any maintenance,
heavy mechanic work, Mr. Hunt advised that some maintenance (not major,
mechanical) will be done on site. Mr. Cronce requested the Board taken into
consideration that not many residents are in the area. He does not feel a restriction should be placed
on Mr. Hunt preventing him from working as limiting the hours of work would be a
hardship, but he is requesting the applicant be considerate of his neighbors.
Mr. Cronce also expressed
concerns about the present condition of
Paul Cronce, 1425 Route 179, stated that he does not want to
discourage the operation, however, he also is concerned with the noise issue if
the hours of operation are not limited.
Minutes –
Page 4
In response to questioning by
the Board, Mr. Hunt advised that he will be visiting the location
periodically. He stated that a
restriction on noise (decibel) could be considered and put into lease
agreements to prevent excessive noise.
Mr. Hunt was directed to reference existing Township regulations
concerning this matter.
Mr. Hunt advised that his
hours of operation would be Mon-Fri with some Saturday hours. Mr. Cronce
reaffirmed that
Gary Robinson,
No action taken at this
time. Application is carried to
APPLICATIONS:
Letter dated
Tom Townes of the Thomas Group,
Architects for
Mr. Townes advised there
would be no site improvements outside of the building at this time. The proposed auditorium will consist of 515
seats.
Mr. Townes addressed
questioning by Ms. Smith. The
alterations/upgrades will be the first question on the referendum; the
auditorium is the second question; there are approximately 150 students in the
middle school and 350 in the total school.
In regard to concerns expressed about parking, Mr. Townes advised that
the site currently accommodates 150 vehicles which will accommodate the
auditorium seating and which is consistent with current zoning requirements. However, Mr. Townes stated that the district
will explore additional parking measures if the referendum is approved. He further advised that this proposal
addresses current restrictions on middle school physical education programs.
Dave Beaumont, resident of
Rock Rd. W., and school board member, advised the Board that the school
superintendent was unable to make this meeting but will be present at the
Township Committee meeting tomorrow evening to address these and other
questions. Mr. Beaumont further advised
that the Communities Facilities Task Force has recognized parking at the school
as a problem. If additional funding is available
when the project goes out to bid, the district will explore expansion of parking. It was noted that avenues are being looked
into for the parking of school buses on township or county property.
Mr. Townes addressed concern
expressed by Mr. Pfeiffer about the proximity of the auditorium addition to
In response to questioning by
Engineer Clerico, Mr. Townes advised that they are obligated to meet the DEP
stormwater regulations and will do so.
Minutes –
Page 5
The floor was opened to the
public for questions/comments. Hearing
none, the floor was closed.
It was agreed that a letter
would be sent to the NJ Department of Education outlining the issues of concern
by the Board which include: parking
availability for the auditorium addition, proximity of the addition to
Mr. Townes advised that if
the referendum passes, they will reappear before the Board with an informal
presentation of the proposal.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
DRAFT GROWTH SHARE ORDINANCE/HOUSING
In response to Ms.
Palladino’s questioning of the overall status of these plans, Planner
Mercantante advised that they will be incorporating growth share projections received
recently from the County, and redefine the growth number based on those figures
and the figures provided by Planner Bishop.
He stated that the only issue left for initial plan endorsement is to include
this information from Ms. Bishop and define the growth share number. This information should be available for next
month’s meeting packets and once approved, can be forwarded to the Office of Smart
Growth. It was noted that the Stormwater
Management Plan and Stream Corridor Ordinance need to be finalized. It was agreed that the COAH figures would be
finalized by Planners Bishop and Mercantante for possible introduction in early
October and final adoption in November.
A discrepancy in the square
footage figure listed for Hood Floors as pointed out by Engineer Clerico (which
will subsequently affect the growth share obligation number previously noted)
will be addressed by Planner Bishop. Ms.
Bishop requested the Board review the materials distributed and forward any comments/corrections
to her via e-mail.
STREAM CORRIDOR ORDINANCE DRAFT – ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION
Ron Shapella, representative
of the Environmental Commission, provided revised, Stream Corridor Ordinance. This ordinance reflects changes from comments
offered at the last Board meeting and is scheduled for final adoption at the
Township Committee on
Issues that were raised in
correspondence received from Environmental Commission member John Hoff
(letter distributed to Board
dated
Mr. Shapella provided copies
of the change in language to page 6, Section 6B, as reviewed by the Township
Attorney, and Planning Board Attorney. Mr. Hoff expressed concerns with the existing
language in the ordinance in that it will prove onerous and costly to
applicants considering minor work within the protected areas as outlined in the
ordinance. The ordinance was amended
under 6B to read, “In order to ensure continued protection of stream corridors,
applications subject to subdivision
review (excluding boundary line adjustments where no new lots are created) or
site plan review shall permanently restrict…”.
Minutes –
Page 6
Public comments:
Mike Rassweiller, 380 Rock Rd. E. – Mr. Rassweiller expressed concerns
on behalf of the Agricultural Advisory Board regarding this ordinance. Mr.
Rassweiller related that the Ag Advisory Board’s past concerns as to the affect
of land use regulations on agricultural liabilities still have not been resolved. He stated that the stream corridor protection
ordinance as it stands now raises two issues: although the ordinance states
there is no impact on agricultural uses, they feel it will create a severe
impact on agricultural liability. He implored the Planning Board and Township
Committee to overcome this inability to resolve land use regulations; the other
issue is that it seems inconsistent with previous protection; the stream
corridor protection is vague as to how it is applied and how it should be
applied. Mr. Rassweiller referenced
section 6B wherein the stream corridor protection will be instituted when any
property owner pulls any permit. He
noted that this requirement seems consistent with the DEP’s standard of
shifting the mapping of the streams and expense to the residents. Mr. Rassweiller stated that the agricultural
community stresses their opinion that land use regulations can be onerous. He reiterated that the stream corridor
ordinance should clearly define what it affects and when it is put into effect.
He recommended that the phrase “within the stream corridor” be included in
various instances which would help with the problem. Mr. Rassweiller expressed
his opinion that outside agency restrictions already exist and we should keep
the ordinance simple and should only be put same into action if something is
done “within the stream corridor.” Mr. Rassweiller also expressed his opinion
that there is no justification for the increase from 75 ft. to 150 ft.; he
feels that 75 ft is sufficient and encouraged the Planning Board to keep the 75
ft. requirement.
Ron Shapella addressed Mr.
Rassweiller’s concerns stating that the ordinance clearly states that this will
not affect farming and requirements exist now for the submission of certain
data for development applications. Mr.
Rassweiller reaffirmed his position that it does affect the farming community. He
also stated that although survey and site plan work have to be done, if clarification
is made for work done “within the stream corridor” it would clear up issues.
Mr. Shapella advised that
language was developed with Attorneys Shurts and Faherty, to remove
requirements for applications with small amendments (amendment to Section 6B)
as referenced and distributed earlier. Planner Mercantante recommended this
same language be added to other sections of the ordinance for clarification
purposes. Engineer Clerico suggested
that if you want to apply this ordinance to existing building, someone has to
certify that they are not within the stream corridor and mapping will have to
be referred to; some mechanism must be in place. The topic of concern surrounds the instances
of single, isolated building permits. Planner Mercantante questioned whether the
requirement would be needed for someone building one house or doing minor work
in that they would have to fully determine and map all streams and features
located on the site which could present a hardship and suggested consideration
of exempting circumstances involving construction permits or matters pertaining
to agricultural purposes . Engineer Clerico
suggested that consideration be given to only obligating property owners to
mapping within a certain amount of area within the stream corridor or
certifying that none exists.
Ms. Palladino commented that
the Township will be developing and maintaining a map for reference. She agreed that reconsideration should be
given to residents only applying for building permits but the requirements must
be met for subdivision applications. Ms.
Palladino stated that we need this updated document in place to alleviate
potential liability to the Township. She further commented that we have the highest
open space tax and go beyond to protect farmland but we have to look out for all
of the residents of the Township. She noted
her support of this stream corridor ordinance, but agreed a policy decision
should be considered as to what triggers it and who maps at whose expense and
concurred that consideration be given to narrow it to the area that it relates
to within the portion of the stream corridor.
Minutes –
Page 7
John Hoff, addressed the Board, expressing his satisfaction
with the language change now incorporated in the ordinance. He expressed his opinion that the new
language will make the requirements less onerous and more fair for those who
are making an impact as opposed to making everyone do it.
Letters were received from Elise
Wright, dated
Joann Speranza,
Don Hart, property owner, requested the Board entertain the initial
recommendation by the State for 75 ft; not 150 ft.; he feels 75 ft. is
adequately supported scientifically.
Ms. Palladino noted that
several members of the Environmental Commission were present at the meeting and
requested whether they wanted to reconsider the proposed requirement. John Dale, responded on behalf of the
Commission, stating that the standards set forth by them have been justified
and the Commission does not wish to reconsider their recommendations.
Ms. Palladino polled the
Board as to their opinion on whether the 150 ft. standard should be
reconsidered. Ms. VanDerVeen and Mr.
Pfeiffer expressed their support of keeping the 150 ft. requirement. Mr. Meader stated his opinion that 75 ft. is more
than adequate as there is no documentation that the steams are in poor
condition. Ms. Palladino noted there was
a consensus in keeping the 150 ft. requirement whereas only one Board member
expressed opposition.
Based on the prior discussion
and recommendations, it was agreed that a policy statement be included on page
5, section 4d, and language should be amended to read, “…and shall identify all
stream segments present within 150 ft.
of the proposed disturbance or certify as to the absence thereof.”.
Motion was made by Pfeiffer
with a second by VanDerVeen recommending the following changes to the
ordinance:
Pg. 5 Section 4d – Establishment of Stream Corridor –
language to be amended to read in part, “…and shall identify all stream
segments present within 150 ft. of the
proposed disturbance or certify as to the absence thereof.”.
Pg. 6 Section 6b – Performance Standards – language to
be amended to read in part, “In order to ensure continued protection of stream
corridors, applications subject to subdivision
review (excluding boundary line adjustments where no new lots are created) or
site plan review…”.
Roll call: Dale-aye, Molnar-aye, Palladino-aye,
Pfeiffer-aye, Smith-aye, VanDerVeen-aye, Meader-nay.
It was agreed that the
Board’s professionals would formally incorporate the Board’s recommendations
into the ordinance and forward same for consideration by the Township Committee
at the August 17, 2005, meeting.
Ms. Palladino requested an
update and clarification of the build-out density analysis. Mr. Shapella stated
that work is being done and will take approximately one month. He advised the
cost will be less than initially anticipated as they will be using data from the
County. Correspondence sent to Engineer
Clerico and Planner Mercantante from John Miller of Princeton Hydro was
referenced. Engineer Clerico advised the
Township was given a proposal by Princeton Hydro in 2004 outlining the options
for the work to be done and the Township authorized them to do only the
obligatory components of the study; some were not bound by the April 05
deadline. That work that was authorized has been completed and adopted. In response to questioning by Ms. Palladino
as to what the State is looking for to satisfy the amendment of the wastewater management plan, Engineer Clerico
advised that we need to finish the stormwater management plan, finish the land
use build-out analysis, ordinance review, and that there is an optional
mitigation plan. It was noted that
consideration be given to working with the Regional Planning Group Partnership to
speed up the process or retain someone to do this analysis. Clerk Lora Olsen was present and was
requested by Ms. Palladino to research information regarding a previous pilot
program conducted for West Amwell Township by Tom D’Allessio concerning the GOZ
Program which may help with the process otherwise the services of Princeton
Hydro will need to be retained to carry out the analysis. Ms. Palladino will also speak with Sue Dziamara
from the County Planning Board as to whether they have an in-house model.
Minutes –
Page 8
Ms. Palladino stressed the
relevance of all of this work as we are trying to eliminate the sewer service
area.
Planner Mercantante advised
that he has received everything needed from Clerk Olsen for the initial plan
endorsement; he needs only to input the COAH figures and build-out analysis
information that he received from the County, and he will have the whole
package together by next month.
Engineer Clerico provided a
summary of his letter dated 12/16/04 to the Township outlining the pending
needs by DEP for the elimination of the wastewater management plan to include: modifications
to the land use map; nitrate dilution analysis; stream corridor protection
ordinance, stormwater management ordinance, submission of public water analysis; copy of new Township
Ordinance requiring applicants under the MLUL to identify and assess impacts of
proposed land development applications relating
to state designated threatened and endangered species habitats. Mr. Shapella advised that the community
forestry subcommittee is looking into this last requirement. It was suggested that DEP may have this
information mapped in their database.
PROPOSED HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Secretary Griffiths advised
that letter was sent to Zoning Official Venettone requesting his opinion as to
whether modifications/stricter regulations to the home occupation ordinance
should be considered, however, no response has been received to date.
NEW BUSINESS:
OTHER: None presented.
CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence from the New
Jersey League of Municipalities regarding the approval of S-2133/A-3803 – Educational Requirements for Zoning and Planning
Board Members was received and distributed.
Hunterdon County Planning
Board, Development Review Committee,
agendas were received.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn at
Respectfully
submitted,
Donna
M. Griffiths
Secretary