WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP LAND USE BOARD PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES. February 27, 2019, 7:30 p.m.

Transcription

1 WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP LAND USE BOARD PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2019, 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER and PUBLIC NOTICE Chairman Artigliere called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. stating this was the regular meeting of the Land Use Board of the Township of Washington. Adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act in that a notice was published in the Star Gazette and transmitted to the Express Times. Notice was posted on the municipal bulletin board in the Township Administration Building in Washington Township, New Jersey, and notice was filed with the Township Clerk. FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL Present: Robert Klingel, Ralph Fiore, Stephen Swinton, Erich Sodtalbers, Gretchen Foley, Brian McCatharn, Leonard Artigliere, James Vander Horn, Michael Lum Absent: Maureen O Donnell, Evan Howell Professionals Present: Steven P. Gruenberg, Esq., Kevin Smith, P.E., C.M.E., Scarlett Doyle, P.P. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Klingel, seconded by Fiore to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on February 13, Members in favor: Robert Klingel, Ralph Fiore, Stephen Swinton, Erich Sodtalbers, James Vander Horn, Michael Lum. Members abstaining: Brian McCatharn, Gretchen Foley, Leonard Artigliere. 7:35 p.m. Mayor Klingel and Committeeman Fiore were recused from the application and left the dais. PUBLIC HEARING New Jersey American Water Company, Inc. Application # , Block 48, Lot 78, Zone VR. Continued from November 29, 2017 & January 31 & February 14, March 14, April 11, 25, May 9, May 30, June 27, July 11, July 25, August 8, August 29, September 12, October 10, November 14, November 28, December 12, 2018, January 30, 2019 and February 13, Attorney for the applicant, Guliet Hirsch, appeared and discussed that the applicant had provided new notice of hearing due to the cancellation of the January 30, 2019 meeting. Mr. Gruenberg stated that the Board had also provided notice of the continuation of the public hearing and found that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed. Ms. Hirsch discussed her letter dated January 9, 2019 which addressed the concerns raised by the Board including the footing being supported on bedrock and if the tank size or height could be reduced noting that per Mr. Slota s testimony this would not be permitted by the DEP regulations, a copy of correspondence from the DEP was provided in Ms. Hirsch s letter. Ms. Hirsch addressed the concerns from the Mansfield Township Land Use Board minutes noting that Mr. Slota s testimony was that there would be a connection to Mansfield adding that the tank would not increase water supply into the system. Ms. Hirsch discussed the question of whether the property had ever been mined and referred to the title search that was submitted which indicated no evidence of mining rights or being owned by a mining company. Ms. Hirsch addressed the concerns of compounds found in the soil borings referring to Mr. Seit s July 11, 2018 testimony regarding a report prepared by Mellick and Tully and requested that this report be marked into evidence. The Board discussed the report

2 Washington Township Land Use Board 2 being marked into evidence. After discussion the Site Investigative Report dated September 18, 2017 by Mellick & Tully was marked as Exhibit A-46. The title report prepared by Cortez & Hay Title Agency dated January 18, 2019 was marked as Exhibit A-47. Ms. Hirsch asked if the State mining maps provided by Mr. Slota should be marked and if the applicant should provide testimony. Mr. Artigliere asked the qualifications of Mr. Slota to provide testimony on the mining maps. Ms. Hirsch discussed. Ms. Slota appeared, still under oath, providing testimony on the 6 State mining maps submitted. Map one 1890 sepia map found a State website of abandoned mines was entered as Exhibit A-48. Map two was a blow up of the same map with the notations no mines in the area being added by Mr. Slota which indicated the existing mining location shown in red circles was entered as Exhibit A-49. Map three in the series submitted was a geologic survey of New Jersey showing 1874 iron ore mine locations and seams of iron ore formations was entered as Exhibit A-50. Map four was a blow up of the this map which was entered as Exhibit A-51, Mr. Slota discussed the mines indicated on the map and identified different iron ore districts, Mr. Slota discussed that there was a legend on Exhibit 50 showing the mine locations and stated that the intent was to show that no mines were in the area of the subject property. Map five from the usgs.gov federal website indicating mines recorded by the USGS with the mines labeled clearly was entered as Exhibit A-52, Mr. Slota discussed that no mines were shown near the subject property. Map six was a blow up of the USGS map entered as Exhibit A-53, Mr. Slota located the subject site on the map. Mr. Sodtalbers discussed that his concern was not that there was an actual mine on the property but an air shaft and discussed that it was not known what was put in the landfill stating that there must have been a depression, or something done on the property to create a pit where it was not known how deep it went. Mr. Slota stated that there was proof from the geotechnical soil borings taken around the foundation of the tank. The Board discussed. Chairman Artigliere asked for public questions on the mining map testimony. Robbie Ganz, 17 Birchwood Avenue, asked if Mr. Slota knew who prepared the maps and asked Mr. Slota s qualifications to provide testimony on the maps. Mr. Artigliere stated to allow the testimony was the Board s decision. Mr. Vander Horn asked if there were separate water lines for residential and fire prevention and if the tank was to provide fire volume only and not increased water to serve other residential developments. Mr. Slota discussed that the tank feeds the one system with no additional volume from the ground being pumped and was not being built to benefit any one development not related to the tank. A motion to close the public hearing was made by Vander Horn, seconded by Swinton. All were in favor. Ms. Hirsch stated that she would rest with her written statement unless the Board would like to review. Mr. Gruenberg stated that he would provide the legal standard and Ms. Hirsch could comment if necessary. Ms. Hirsch agreed. Mr. Gruenberg discussed the proposed conditions as forth in Ms. Hirsh s correspondence including outside approvals, plantings to the satisfaction of the Board planner; 5 year landscaping maintenance agreement; dust control measures; soil conservation district approval; compliance with DEP permits; address school bus stops; widening of Birchwood Avenue within the right-of-way; provide a temporary easement if necessary; color of the tank to be sky blue with no logos or signage, lights or additional utility or cell tower; plans to be revised as discussed; access drive and gate to be revised to allow snow plowing operations; fence to be wrought iron black; landscaping to be placed inside of fence; no expansion of the site without Board approval; super silt

3 Washington Township Land Use Board 3 fence; soil stockpiles to be covered; fence to be 8 feet high; provision of developers agreement. Application for use variance to construct a 110 foot high water tank requiring a d1 use variance in residential zone; d6 variance for height standard; front yard setback c variance. Mr. Gruenberg discussed the standards for the Board to grant the variances noting that the applicant was stating that the water tank was an inherently beneficial use. Mr. Gruenberg discussed that the Board should determine if the applicant had met the burden of proof to classify the project as an inherently beneficial use. Ms. Hirsch commented on the site being particularly suited Mr. Gruenberg discussed. The Board deliberated on whether the water tank was an inherently beneficial use. Mr. Artigliere discussed the professional presentation over the length of the application by Ms. Hirsch and appreciated the public for attending and for their comments noting that this was a legal proceeding where the Board was bound by the law. Mr. Artigliere discussed that the primary issue was if the tank could be considered an inherently beneficial use where frankly the tangible risk of damaging an entire neighborhood was greater than a potential catastrophic fire. The Board was to weigh issues not solely based on the possibility that something may happen and added that a water tower was not automatically considered an inherently beneficial use. Mr. Artigliere discussed that the sole purpose presented to the Board was the necessity of fire suppression where the only testimony that was given on the need for fire suppression based on a catastrophic fire that occurred years ago in the Borough of Washington was a single letter. No other evidence was presented by the applicant on the necessity nor was any testimony presented from the fire department. Mr. Artigliere discussed that no other tangential benefits were cited by the applicant. Mr. Artigliere discussed that the need for the water tank was not substantially established and, in his view, based on the testimony provided that the project does not meet the standards for an inherently beneficial use. Mr. Swinton discussed the effect on the neighborhood and property values and that no fire officials presented testimony on the need for the tank and that after weighing the testimony the tank did not meet the standards. Ms. Hirsch discussed that the discussion now was the sole issue of an inherently beneficial use. Mr. Artigliere discussed. Ms. Foley discussed that the fourth factor regarding the height and visibility affected the character of the neighborhood. A motion that the applicant did not meet the burden of proof to meet the standards of an inherently beneficial use was made by Swinton, seconded by Vander Horn. Members in favor: Stephen Swinton, Erich Sodtalbers, Gretchen Foley, Brian McCatharn, James Vander Horn, Michael Lum, Leonard Artigliere. Mr. Gruenberg directed the Board to weigh the positive and negative criteria to determine whether to grant the use variances required including fact specific if the site was particularly suited for the use. Mr. Artigliere discussed that the burden was not to prove that it was best site for the use but that the site was particularly suited. 9:22 p.m. Mr. Vander Horn left the meeting. 9:25 p.m. Mr. Vander Horn returned. Mr. Artigliere discussed that the issues of an inherently beneficial use also factor into the decision and that the initial question was why a former landfill was considered for the water tower and discussed that testimony was provided regarding hydraulics, elevation and height of the tower. Mr. Artigliere opined that the use was not particularly suited for this property with testimony from residents of things that occurred on the site including

4 Washington Township Land Use Board 4 the smells and colors eye witnessed by residents including Ms. Heath s testimony on the activities on the site. Mr. Artigliere discussed that he found the testimony by Mr. Renwick on property value and his methodology not convincing and found comments flippant and unsupported. Mr. Artigliere discussed that the contamination issue was important. Mr. Artigliere discussed the negative issues where the Board had to consider the impact to the community which was already dealing with a closed landfill, a fire station down the street and a solar farm recently approved further down the street to add a tank that was large and tall in close proximity noting that he did consider the testimony on the color of the tank as well as distances from the homes to the tower where no amount of trees or landscaping would limit the impact to residents. Mr. Artigliere stated that the Board was not bound to accept expert testimony just because it was said and to apply the test on how much weight to give expert testimony. Considerations were not just the impact to property value but to the quality of life for the community. Mr. Artigliere discussed that he did not believe the testimony from Mr. Block noting that the applicant s planner was parroting the standards which were not convincing. Mr. Artigliere discussed the positive criteria where the benefits of the fire suppression was convincing but not as direct about the need and the frequency of that need. Mr. Artigliere concluded that the negative criteria was not overcome by the testimony and that it was a significant burden. Mr. Swinton discussed the visual impact of the tank on residents and that the effect on real estate value was understated by Mr. Renwick. Mr. Swinton discussed that the negative impact of the landfill outweighed the benefit of the fire suppression noting that no testimony from the fire department was presented. Mr. Sodtalbers discussed that he found that the lot was not particularly suited for the use adding that other sites may be better suited in the Township and that the applicant did not overcome the negatives noting that the location was wrong. A motion was to deny the application was made by Sodtalbers, seconded by Swinton. Members in favor: Stephen Swinton, Erich Sodtalbers, Gretchen Foley, Brian McCatharn, James Vander Horn, Michael Lum, Leonard Artigliere. 9:37 p.m. The Board recessed. 9:45 p.m. The meeting resumed. Ms. Foley and Mr. Artigliere were recused from the application and did not return. Vice Chairman Swinton chaired the meeting. Mayor Klingel and Committeeman Fiore returned to the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Hawk Pointe Townhouses/Asbury Farms Application # , Block 65 Lots 2 & 4 and Block Lot 1 Attorney, Alan Lowcher, appeared for the applicant and discussed the application. Division manager for Ryan Homes, Joseph Battaglia, was sworn in for testimony as a fact witness. A rendering of the front elevation of the Calvert model townhome was entered as Exhibit A-13 Mr. Battaglia discussed that the model came with 2-3 bedrooms, a garage fronting the proposed internal roads, some with basements & some on slab all with stone accents and window treatments. A rendering of the rear elevation was entered as Exhibit A-14 with would be seen along Hawk Pointe Boulevard and Falcon Way would have gables and window treatments. Mr. Battaglia discussed the floor plans with an optional first floor bedroom or sunroom and discussed the articulation of the units being 2 feet where the options would not be able to be offered if the

5 Washington Township Land Use Board 5 articulation was the required 5 feet. A rendering of the floor plans for the units was entered as Exhibit A-15, reduced copies were distributed to the Board. Mr. Battaglia discussed that the setbacks were closer due to the options being offered on the units. Ms. Doyle asked the distance being provided to the sidewalk and if relief from the 30% stone requirement was being sought. Mr. Battaglia discussed that the distance provided would 18 feet and that the 30% stone would be met. Mr. McCatharn asked how many units would have a full basement. Mr. Moschello still under other responded. Mr. Swinton asked if the applicant would consider not offering the options on the particular units that would create a variance. Mr. Battaglia discussed that the options were a nice offering for buyers. Paul Zawasky, 10 Osprey Court, asked if any privacy fencing was being proposed along Falcon Way. Mr. Battaglia stated that no fencing was proposed along Falcon Way. Roberta Zawasky, 10 Osprey Court, discussed that if the setback requirement was intended to protect the land use the variances could only be granted when there was a hardship. Mr. Gruenberg discussed that the questions would be appropriate during the planning testimony. Alan Theesfeld, 9 Osprey Court, asked the number of bedrooms and what floors they were on and if there would be any bedrooms in the basement. Mr. Battaglia responded that the units were 2-3 bedroom with an optional fourth bedroom on the first floor and that they did not offer any bedroom in the basement. Mr. Zawaski asked how many units had basements. Mr. Moshello responded. Mr. Lowcher discussed that it was after 10:00 p.m. and requested that the hearing be continued to the next meeting. Mayor Klingel suggested that the applicant be allowed to continue since the previous application had taken more time and asked the consensus of the Board. The applicant s planner, Jason Dunn was sworn in for testimony as a professional planner and architect. Mr. Dunn stated his credentials as a licensed professional planner in New Jersey and was accepted as same. Mr. Dunn provided testimony on the positive and negative criteria for the variance relief requested including garages fronting on the street, setbacks, encroachment into the 25 buffer to the property line and unit articulation of 2 feet where 5 feet was required. Mr. Dunn cited the units were accessed by internal streets to allow the free flow of traffic where the garages would front on those internal minor streets; would allow for greater accessibility to the units for seniors; would provide good design by reducing impervious coverage and promotes the zoning plan providing senior mobility, enhanced appearance by providing gables and transoms on the elevations. Mr. Dunn discussed the articulation allows the project to move forward and satisfied the intent of the ordinance by breaking up the elevation to provide architectural interest and provides options of an additional bedroom on the first floor or sunroom for senior housing construction noting that it conformed to the spirit of the ordinance where the negatives were outweighed by the positives. Mr. Dunn discussed the several setback variances required noting that when the Redevelopment Plan was prepared the applicant did not anticipate internal roadways which was a better design and made the setback requirement almost impossible to meet noting that the reduced setbacks were mitigated by additional landscaping. Mr. Dunn discussed that there were no incompatible uses and the project promoted a desirable visual environment which was in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Dunn discussed the encroachment into the 25 foot buffer area of a unit and roadway where the majority of the setback was respected in Area 7, allow a hammerhead turnaround with 1 foot to the property line and a proposed 6 foot high fence by the existing clubhouse noting that the difference in

6 Washington Township Land Use Board 6 elevation was approximately 6-7 feet and that landscaping would be added on the clubhouse lot to mitigate the visual impact. Mr. Dunn discussed the variance question from the resident where the applicant was seeking a c2 variance not a hardship or c1 variance. Mr. Dunn stated that this was a great project with quality homes being built. George Willan, 32 Falcon Way, stated that there was no fencing in all of the Hawk Pointe community and stated his concern for the proposed fence next to the existing clubhouse asking if additional landscaping could be installed instead. Applicant, Richard Cotton, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Cotton discussed that the block wall and fence would match the existing to make a seamless transition. Mr. Moschello stated that the fence would need to be installed on top of the retaining wall for safety and discussed that the type of fence could be changed and additional landscaping could be installed on the clubhouse lot to provide additional screening from the wall and fencing. Ms. Doyle suggested a decorative black fence. The applicant agreed. Eleanor Levy, 14 Peregrine Drive, was sworn in for testimony stated the landscaping was important and discussed that the taxes on the new homes would be 50% less than the existing homes which would bring down the value of the existing homes creating a problem to resell homes for the Hawk Pointe residents. Attorney Guliet Hirsch appeared and discussed a letter from NJ American Water Co. prepared by Manoj Patel dated February 26, 2019 regarding a request for an easement for the sewer plant which owned and operated by NJ American Water Co, noting that there were concerns not objections and that the water company was looking for a simple way to deal with the issue. Manoj Patel was sworn in for testimony as an employee of NJ American Water and licensed engineer in New Jersey, stated his credentials and was accepted. Mr. Patel discussed the operations of the waste water treatment facility and the need for daily access for maintenance of the facility stating that the concern was with the new roadway proposed on the side of the building that would prevent access to employees. Mr. Patel suggested that the applicant grant the water company a 10 foot wide access easement to allow trucks to bring in equipment and discussed the nature of the maintenance required where trucks would need to be parked on the east side of the building. Mr. Lowcher discussed addressing the issue, noting that Mr. Smith s letter had mentioned the same concern. Mr. Moschello using Exhibit A-6 located the treatment plant location which had a zero setback and 9 feet from the curb line and suggested an easement of feet into the right-of-way with a depressed curb that would provide no physical difference to the improvement and would allow access to the facility. Mr. Smith discussed a detail of the easement proposed which was entered as Exhibit O-1 noting that the employee access was on the east side of the building and suggested that a sidewalk be provided to access the entrance. Mr. Smith discussed the maintenance of the facility where a truck would need to be parked along the building noting that traffic control devices would be used during these times to provide safety adding that the easement would avoid having NJ American Water applying for a road opening permit each time. Mr. Gruenberg stated that an easement could not be located in a dedicated right-of-way. Mr. Moschello discussed reducing the width of the right-of-way in this section to be able provide an easement to both entities. Mr. Gruenberg discussed that a condition of any approval would need to include a deed of the access easement including who would maintain the area to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Board professionals. Mr. Lowcher agreed.

7 Washington Township Land Use Board 7 Mr. Gruenberg discussed the conditions including compliance with Exhibits B-1 & B-2 as discussed; lot and block numbers to be assigned by the tax assessor; performance guarantee and escrow; compliance report to redevelopment plan as necessary; added sidewalks as discussed; shift retaining wall onto Area 6 lot from the clubhouse lot, black decorative fence and landscaping to be installed by the existing clubhouse to be reviewed by Board planner; NJDEP permit for construction in a riparian zone in Area 9; home owners association created for Areas 6, 7 & 9 delineating maintenance of the common areas, sidewalks, curbing and detention basin areas, etc. as well parking configuration enforcement; landscaping to the satisfaction of the Board planner; final acreage to be added on the plans; NJ American Water Co. resolution of access issue; additional sidewalk for access for sewer facility; de minimus exceptions to RSIS standards requires notification to DCA; recharge offsite with water quality to be on-site. Applicant seeking preliminary and final major subdivision for Areas 6, 7 & 9; preliminary and final site plan for Areas 6 & 7 and preliminary site plan for Area 9. A motion to close the public hearing was made by Klingel, seconded by Fiore. All were in favor. The Board discussed the application. A motion was to approve preliminary and final major subdivision for Areas 6, 7 & 9; preliminary and final site plan for Areas 6 & 7 and preliminary site plan for Area 9 and variances requested with conditions as discussed was made by Swinton, seconded by Lum. Members in favor: Robert Klingel, Ralph Fiore, Stephen Swinton, Brian McCatharn, James Vander Horn, Michael Lum. Members against: Erich Sodtalbers PUBLIC CONCERNS AND COMMENTS Asked about the price points of the townhouses. Mr. Gruenberg stated that the public hearing on the application had been closed and suggested that the questions be asked outside of the meeting of the applicant. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments, a motion was made by Klingel, seconded by Fiore to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. All were in favor. Respectfully Submitted, These minutes were approved on March 13, 2019 Eileen Parks Secretary to the Board