MEETING NO. 10 OCTOBER 16, 2018 BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES

Transcription

1 MEETING NO. 10 OCTOBER 16, 2018 BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS IS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 231, PUBLIC LAW 1975 AND BY RESOLUTION , WITH THE REQUEST OF THE HOME NEWS AND TRIBUNE AND THE SENTINEL NEWSPAPERS TO PUBLISH SAME, AND THIS ANNOUNCEMENT MUST BE ENTERED INTO THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING. A meeting of the South River Planning Board was held on October 16, 2018 commencing at 7:00pm at the Criminal Justice Building, located at 61 Main Street, South River, NJ This meeting was held in compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6. ROLL CALL Michael Beck, Chairman Michael Clancy Donna Farren James Jones Cynthia Urbanik, Vice-Chairman Kevin Render George Evanovich Julie Meira Richard Byrne, 1 st Alternate Member John Sapata, 2 nd Alternate Member Cynthia Wilk, Mayor s Alternate Mayor John Krenzel Tamar Lawful, Secretary Thomas Barlow, Attorney Malay Patel, Engineer Todd Bletcher, Planner MINUTES The meeting Minutes of October 16, 2018 was motioned to be approved by Mr. Jones and seconded by Ms. Farren.

2 BOARD BUSINESS & CORRESPONDENCE PRESENTATION BY DIGROUP ARCHITECTURE By: Richard Alderiso Re: The integration of a security vestibule at the South River High School main entrance. The Board listened and observed a brief presentation by Mr. Richard Alderiso, the Principal of DIGroup Architecture in regards to the installation of a security vestibule at the South River High School. Mr. Alderiso demonstrated with a colored copy of the security vestibule and how it will operate to further enhance security at the high school. He addressed questions from the board. The board is in favor of the proposed security vestibule. *** PUBLIC SESSION A motion was made to open the floor to the public. With no one else present, a motion was made to close the public session. *** RESOLUTION A motioned made by Mr. Clancy and seconded by Mr. Jones to allow resolutions to be ready by title. The following resolution was read by title and memorialized: File # G LANE, LLC Block 148, Lot 57, Minor Site Plan RESOLUTION BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER PLANNING BOARD Be it resolved by the Borough of South River Planning Board that: Page 2 of 18

3 WHEREAS, 42G Lane, LLC., the Applicant, has applied to the Borough of South River Planning Board for minor site plan approval and bulk variances for Block 148, Lot 37; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has complied with the jurisdictional requirements necessary to prosecute the application; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Application and the representations of the Applicant and its expert at a meeting held on September 18, 2018, the Borough of South River Planning Board has made the following findings: 1. The Applicant is represented by George W. Pressler, Esq. 2. The property is known as Block 148, Lot 37, on the Borough of South River Tax Map. 3. The subject property is a 7,566-sf irregular parcel located on the east side of Gross Lane. Gross Lane is a 12 -wide, ±81 deep paved lot, owned by the Borough of South River, which serves as an alley connecting several parcels to George Street. Gross Lane connects to George Street opposite the George Street Firehouse. This particular lot has no frontage on any other mapped street of the Borough. 4. The lot contains an existing 2-story frame dwelling containing four (4) dwelling units on the south corner of the lot. The units include (1) 1-bedroom and (3) 2-bedroom units. The north area of the lot contains a paved/gravel parking lot. 5. The building is located in the R-75 (Single Family Residential) Zone and the existing multifamily apartment building is a non-conforming, but lawfully pre-existing use in this zone. 6. The following agencies reviewed the application and commented: A. Bignell Planning Consultants, Inc. August 13, 2018, Memorandum; B. CME Associates August 30, 2018, Memorandum. Page 3 of 18

4 7. John Horsley, the sole owner of 42G Lane, LLC., testified and indicated that he is seeking site plan and bulk variances approval to repave and improve the exterior area of the site. No changes are proposed for the dwelling. The existing parking area would be repaved and striped for nine (9) vehicles. A 24 back-up aisle will be created to provide access to the parking stalls. A storage shed will remain on the east side of the building. New curbing will enclose the parking area and create a pavement connection to the shed. Mr. Horsley testified a residential/ recreation/picnic area is proposed on the east corner of the site. A new fenced storage area is proposed on the east side of the building for storage, trash cans and bicycles. A landscaping row is proposed on the north side of the parking lot with landscaping beds and motion-activated lighting was also being proposed around the building. The Applicant sought a waiver from submitting a formal lighting plan. The Applicant also indicated they are not removing any trees from the property. The Applicant indicated they will be planting one (1) new tree in the north corner of the lot. 8. Mr. Horsley testified that the improvements were being proposed to make the site safer and more aesthetic pleasing. He testified that the drainage will be improved as a result of a new 70 linear foot recharge pipe along the edge of the paved parking area. 9. The following Exhibits were marked: A-1 Two (2) page document with a total of four (4) color photographs of the property and the parking lot; A-2 Color rendereding of the site plan. 10. Brent N. Papi, Jr., P.E., whose office is located at 11 South Main Street, Marlboro, New Jersey 07746, was sworn in on behalf of the Applicant. His credentials as a Professional Engineer were recognized by the Board. 11. Mr. Papi went over the plans utilizing A-2. He described to the Board that the parking area was broken up and in poor condition and that the Applicant will repave same. Mr. Papi testified Page 4 of 18

5 that the property is not in the wetlands nor in a flood hazard zone. Mr. Papi indicated the Applicant is proposing raised curbing around a portion of a lot along the north and eastern bounds of the parking lot. Along the west and northwest apportion of the parking lot there are nine (9) striped parking spaces which will have wheel blocks. Mr. Papi indicated by not putting curbing in this area it will allow water to flow sheet across the parking lot into the new proposed draining new system. Mr. Papi testified that the recharge pipe system is comprised of a 12-inch pipe perforated storm pipe with 12 inches of drain stone on all sides and to the surface. The runoff will enter the system from the stone at the surface and the proposed storm drains along the pipe length. Any storm water overflow will drain out of the storm inlet grate closest to Gross Lane. 12. Mr. Papi also testified that adjacent to the parking lot closest to the dwelling there will be six (6) precast round concrete planters to protect the walkway and dwelling area. 13. Mr. Papi testified that there will be landscape beds and motion activated lighting proposed on the building. 14. Mr. Papi testified that the proposed motion activated lighting will allow for safe ingress and egress of parking lot at night. There is currently no lighting in place. Furthermore, he testified that the shrub beds will not only be aesthetically pleasing but also assist with water retention. The Applicant sought a waiver from submitting a formal lighting plan. 15. Mr. Papi testified about the proposed 4-foot vinyl fence area for the trash enclosure on the north side of the dwelling. 16. Members of the public were invited to comment and pose questions and testify. No members of the public chose to do so. 17. The Board made the following conclusions: Page 5 of 18

6 CONCLUSIONS 1. The Board concluded that the Application would be beneficial to the site, as well as to the surrounding properties and to the Borough in general. 2. The Applicant demonstrated that the requested approval could be approved without substantial detriment to the intent and purposes of the Zoning Plan, Zoning Ordinance and the public good. 3. The Board concluded that the requested site plan and bulk variances the Applicant sought were appropriate for the site and in determining same the Board accepted the testimony of the Applicant s experts as well the recommendations of the Borough s professional staff that same could be granted without substantial detriment to the surrounding properties and Borough. For other such reasons as stated in the minutes and recorded at the hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Borough of South River Planning Board pursuant to its statutory powers and on September 18, 2018, on a Motion by Mr. Clancy and seconded by Ms. Farren, that the site plan approval and bulk variances requested by 42G Lane, LLC., Block 148, Lot 37 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant must document approvals or exemptions from the Middlesex County Planning Board, Freehold Soil Conservation District and all other outside agencies having jurisdiction. 2. The Applicant was granted a waiver from submitting a formal lighting plan. The Applicant will install two dwelling mounted motion activated lights. 3. The bulk variances were granted for minimum percentage of landscape coverage in the R- Zone with 50% is requires and 70% of the site is impervious. Page 6 of 18

7 4. Any other violations of the bulk variances requirements for minimum lot width, minimum lot depth, minimum front setback and minimum side/both setback are preexisting conditions and none of the proposed site plan improvements significantly impact on same. 5. A parking variance was granted for the nine (9) striped 9 x 18 parking spaces where a minimum drive way width of 24 feet for 90 degree parking is required and the parking lot has a width of 24 feet that narrows down to 18 feet. 6. A variance is granted for a minimum driveway setback from property line of 5 feet on the north side. 7. A variance is granted for a maximum driveway width of 20 feet and the proposed driveway is ±40 feet wide. 8. A variance is granted from Parking Ordinance Section (16) where if parking abuts a residential zone (within 50 ), a 5 deep screen, with 4-6 high fencing or evergreen hedging or a combination thereof is required, and shrubs are proposed along the north and west side, but the fencing is not. 9. The Applicant will have a 4 vinyl fence around the proposed trash enclosure and bicycle racks. 10. The Applicant will install the recharge pipe system as testified to at the hearing to the satisfaction of the Borough Engineer. 11. The Applicant agreed to amend the plans to provide additional grades for the parking lot requirements. 12. The Applicant agreed the proposed parking spaces shall be labeled on the plans as striped. 13. The Applicant was granted two (2) design waivers for minimum and maximum driveway width. Page 7 of 18

8 14. The applicant will obtain input from the Borough Fire Official regarding adequate emergency vehicle maneuvering areas, fire zones and fire hydrant locations. 15. Copies of any easements, exceptions, deviations, or liens, on the property shall be presented to the Board. 16. The Applicant will abide by all conditions and stipulations agreed to at the Public Hearing, including all those set forth in the Borough Planner s and Engineer s reports. 17. Certification from the Tax Collector on current payment of taxes and assessments on the property shall be present to the Board. 18. The Applicant agrees to properly pay any Board fees, escrows or professional expenses with regards to the Application. The Motion was carried unanimously by a vote of (8) eight to (0) zero. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Board of the Borough of South River at its regular meeting on October 16, This Resolution was voted on as follows: ROLL CALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL: Tamar Lawful Tamar Lawful, Secretary Borough of South River Planning Board Michael Beck, Richard Byrne, Michael Clancy, Donna Farren, James Jones, Kevin Render, Cynthia Urbanik and Cynthia Wilk. OPPOSED TO APPROVAL: None ABSTAINING: None. Page 8 of 18

9 COMPLETENESS The board was informed that there were no applications for completeness. PUBLIC HEARING DOCKET # PB Daniel Andre 411 Whitehead Avenue Block 369 Lot 1.01 Applicant is requesting a minor site plan approval, bulk variances for rear yard setback and exceeding the impervious coverage. George Pressler, the attorney for the applicant came forward. He informed the board that the application pertains to 411 Whitehead Avenue, also known as Lot 1.01 Block 364 on the official tax map. The applicant is before the board in search of a preliminary final site plan approval to utilize the space of an existing building at the aforementioned property and to satisfy the use in the light industrial zone. The applicant further request to modify the existing building for the construction of a one plus story addition, with additional parking, a loading dock and a loading ramp. The applicant agrees to maintain the 40 ft. wooden front buffer along Whitehead Avenue, as recommend in the report by Bignell Planning, stated Mr. Pressler. The property sits back over 200 ft. of the main road. The applicant is requesting a waiver for submitting the landscape plan for the remainder of the site. Mr. Pressler informed that board that the applicant, Daniel Andre and John Andre are currently present but may not testify. The applicant s engineer/planner, Christopher Nusser, is also present, and will give a testimony on both reports submitted by the board s engineer and planners. Mr. Christopher Nusser of 140 West Main Street, High Bridge, NJ came forward to testify as the applicant s engineer and planner. Mr. Nusser addressed the report from the board s engineer, CME Associates, dated October 11, 2018, to which he stated he reviewed, along with the plans submitted by the applicant. Mr. Nusser stated his qualifications as a licensed professional Planner and Engineer in good standing in the state of New Jersey. A motion was made by Ms. Wilk and seconded by Mr. Jones to move into record the reports from CME Associates dated October 11, 2018 and Bignell Planning dated October 10, Mr. Pressler asked Mr. Nusser to address the Page 9 of 18

10 findings of the letter submitted for a Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRP) to determine that the site is safe for commercial use and for occupancy within the building. Mr. Nusser stated that copies of the LSRP report for the site were made for the board, but were inadvertently left in his office. Nonetheless, he gave an overview of the LSRP letter. He explained that the site has historic fills and some metals mixed within the historic fills. Ultimately the remedial effort is to cap the area with pavement on top to secure the material below, state Mr. Nusser. Testing was performed for volatile organic compounds within the site, specifically in the building area; however, none were noted above the standards set by the state. Additionally, all gas were checked below the building and further testing for contaminates in the soil were performed to ensure that the building can be safely occupied. There was no significant compound detected, stated Mr. Nusser. Furthermore, there were no concerns with soil/gas to prevent occupancy of the building, he further reiterated. Testing was also performed on the indoor area for ceramic fiber, but none were detected in the building. There are no environmental concerns, stated Mr. Nusser. Based upon the LSRP work on the site, there are no concerns for occupancy of the building as a result of environmental concerns. Mr. Pressler asked Mr. Nusser to confirm whether the LSRP reports were submitted to the NJDEP. Mr. Nusser stated that he is not certain; however, the site is and will continue to be in compliance with all DEP requirements. Mr. Nusser also confirmed that his firm conducted the testing on the site. CME REPORT Mr. Pressler addressed the report submitted by the board s engineer, CME Associates. In regards to the report, Mr. Pressler addressed the following questions and comments: CME Number 5 - The applicant has requested the vacation of the existing sewer easement. Mr. Nusser stated that he has a report, which is marked as, Exhibit A-1. He explained that there is an existing sewer easement located in the northeast corner of the property. The permanent easement for the sewer facilities was temporarily accessed by the construction workers associated with the sewer easement that is defined by the limits of the existing driveway that goes back from the Trap Rock Industries property to the William property line, stated Mr. Nusser. At this point, it s not necessary. The work was completed and the sewer line was constructed, said Mr. Nusser. Page 10 of 18

11 Mr. Pressler informed the board that a letter was submitted to the Borough s Administrator, Jack Layne, to have the Council review and agree to the vacation of the easement, to which he believes was done. The applicant agrees to an access easement from his client to the borough, explained Mr. Pressler. Mr. Koch s office wants to review the description of the easement, Mr. Pressler continued. Mr. Layne informed the board that a resolution from the council in regards to this matter does not exist at this time. Mr. Pressler, however, stated that he assume that a resolution is forthcoming. CME Number 6 - Mr. Pressler stated that the applicant will comply with providing access to the easement. CME Number 7 - Mr. Pressler stated that an Engineer s Report will be provided to verify that the existing domestic water main and sanitary sewer mains are capable of handling the demand and flow for the proposed use. He also commented that the main sewer line is in good condition. CME Number 8 - With respect to the fire suppression sprinklers, the existing sprinklers will be extended further. Mr. Nusser demonstrated where the sprinkler system will be. He further stated that all work will be done and will be in compliance with the building code to provide adequate sprinklers. Mr. Pressler added that the applicant agrees to the requirement of the Fire Department as it pertains to the sprinklers of the building. CME Number 9 - Mr. Pressler stated that he agrees to provide revised plans to delineate the areas of existing pavement, concrete ramps, pads and walkways that will be removed. CME Number 10 - Mr. Pressler stated that the applicant s engineer will provide revised plans for the impervious coverage calculations to include vegetative areas. CME Number 11 - Mr. Nusser provided a testimony on the proposed gravel parking lot located in the northeast corner of the property, by the sewer easement. According to Mr. Nusser, there are 14 stalls in the gravel parking area. He indicated on the site plan the entire area that is all gravel. The majority of the northern section will be a designated gravel parking area, said Mr. Nusser. In reality, we are removing some of the gravel and revegetating it. Ultimately, the intent is to leave this area as gravel to provide the 14 parking spots, explained Mr. Nusser. CME Number 12 - Mr. Pressler stated that he agree to comply to implement measures to ensure that the storm water runoffs will not negatively impact the adjacent properties. CME Number 13 According to Mr. Pressler, the construction detail will be revised to address section (a) and (b): Page 11 of 18

12 (a) Standard Sidewalk detail shall be revised to show expansion joints every 12 ; (b) The Bituminous Paving Detail shall be revised to show a 19M64 Stabilized Base Course and 6 of Dense Graded Aggregate. As previously discussed, the applicant will comply with the fire departments requirements in respect to the fire suppression system. CME Question 15 - The applicant will seek approval from the Freehold Soil Conservation District and Middlesex County Planning Board or a waiver as may be required, stated Mr. Pressler. CME Number 16 According to Mr. Pressler, the applicant agrees to apply for approval for the removal of the existing headwall. CME Number 17 - The applicant will provide copies of any easements, and exceptions, stated Mr. Pressler. CME Number 18 Mr. Pressler further stated that he believes that all escrow and application fees were submitted as requested. CME Number 18 All the taxes and assessments of the property are all current, stated Mr. Pressler. Going back to CME Number 4 of CME s report, which states the following: *** The Applicant shall submit a letter from a Licensed Site Remediation Professional to determine that the site is safe for commercial use and the building is safe for occupancy. This letter shall also include any remediation taken or required prior to occupying the site and building, including but not limited to asbestos cleanup, historic fill and capping. Mr. Patel requested a copy of the letter provided by the LSRP for the firm to review as a condition of approval. Mr. Pressler, stated he is willing to comply. In regards to CME Number 8 of CME s report, which states the following: The Applicant s engineer shall discuss the need for fire suppression sprinklers within the existing building and proposed addition. Fire Flow Calculations shall be submitted for review. Mr. Patel requested the submission of the fire code calculation be submitted for review, to which Mr. Pressler agreed to as well. In regards to comment 11, concerning the gravel parking lot area, Mr. Patel stated that the area is all gravel. Should the applicant continue to propose a gravel parking area and a buffer, approval from the NJDEP with that buffer will be required, stated Mr. Patel. Mr. Nusser explained that the area is an existing gravel area. He is willing to obtain a permit to remove Page 12 of 18

13 the gravel, if required. However, they are proposing a parking area, whereby the surface itself will not change, he continued. Mr. Patel responded to Mr. Nusser that if the board is approving the site plan they are also approving the parking areas; therefore, something is required from the NJDEP showing that they approve the graveled parking area. Mr. Barlow suggested the applicant provide a maximum of 14 vehicles at the specific gravel parking site. In regards to the easement, the easement exist to permit the borough to access the site. The easement is written as temporary and for construction use, said Mr. Nusser. The intent is to clean up the site and make it easier for everyone. There will be better clarity on what rights the borough has and the obligation of the owners. The effort will help to make it better for everyone, stated Mr. Nusser. Better, in terms of proving access and repairs, stated Ms. Farren. The 14 parking spots were needed by the applicant with the increase in the size of the building and scope of their operation, stated Mr. Jones asked in affirmation. The required number of parking spaces is 81 spaces. The applicant is providing a total of 103, which includes the 14 gravel parking spaces, stated Mr. Nusser. The additional 14 gravel parking spaces are not necessary to meet the parking demand explained Mr. Nusser; however, it gives additional access to tenants on the north side of the building. In his opinion, it s always better to have more parking on the site, added Mr. Nusser. The applicant finds it advantageous to utilize the existing gravel to provide additional parking, stated Mr. Nusser. In regards to the egress and aggress of the driveway, the driveway gives access to the Trap Rock facility that is behind the easement and in front of Mr. Andre s property. The company uses Mr. Andre s property to get in and out of their business, stated Mr. Jones in affirmation. Mr. Nusser responded yes. Ms. Meira asked how long ago the easement was done for the sewer line. Since 1977 responded Mr. Pressler. What about the neighbor behind him that have been using his property, inquired one of the board members? The Trap Rock Industries have been using the roadway access for many years. Once approved by the board, the applicant will attempt to enter into an agreement for continuous access. Mr. Bletcher suggested to make the easement as narrow as possible, continued Mr. Nusser. Ms. Urbanik inquired on whether a temporary easement exist and is being used. The temporary access to the easement is in favor of the Borough, stated Mr. Nusser. The easement belongs to the Borough and not the other property. Mr. Beck inquired about the sewer lines on the site plan. It was clarified that the dashes are the wetland transition areas. The sewer lines are not shown on the sheet, but it runs parallel and will offset to the northeast to Page 13 of 18

14 the edge of the sewer easement, stated Mr. Nusser. Once we have approval, we will submit the Metes and Bounds description to Mr. Koch s office, stated Mr. Pressler. And to the NJDEP, added Ms. Urbanik. Mr. Pressler agreed. BIGNELL PLANNING REPORT Mr. Pressler addressed the report from the board s planner, Bignell Planning. Mr. Pressler began on page 2, section 6B on the report, which reflects the following chart: Bulk: DESCRIPTION REQUIRED PROPOSED CONFORMITY MINIMUM LOT AREA 20,000 SF 183,183 SF COMPLIES MINIMUM LOT WIDTH COMPLIES MINIMUM LOT DEPTH COMPLIES MINIMUM FRONT YARD COMPLIES MINIMUM SIDE YARD COMPLIES MINIMUM BOTH SIDE YARDS 25 <25 COMPLIES MINIMUM REAR YARD EISTING MAIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 3 STORY, story COMPLIES MAIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE 40% 23.8% COMPLIES MAIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER 70% 75.6% VIOLATION 1 bulk violation. Mr. Nusser addressed the comments and concerns in regards to the report submitted by Bignell Planning. As referenced in the chart above, the minimum rear yard setback is existing and is slightly under a foot and a half, stated Mr. Nusser. This section of the building will be removed, therefore, the rear yard setback will improve by 8.97ft. Nevertheless, the minimum rear yard setback remains as an existing condition, but slightly improved. The other item that was noted as a concern in the planner s report is the impervious coverage. The impervious coverage requirement is 70%; however, the applicant is proposing 75.62%, stated Mr. Nusser. The existing impervious coverage on the property is 75.92%. With the proposed improvement, there will be a site reduction on the impervious coverage of the property. Page 14 of 18

15 BP Number 7 - Reflects the number of parking spaces as follow: Required: office 1 space per 200 sf of floor area (3,394st) =15 spaces Warehouse: 1 space per 500 sf (29,714 sf) =59.4 spaces Warehouse: 1 space per 500 sf (2,274 sf) = 4.5. Spaces Total Required: 81 Spaces Provided: 70 dedicated parking spaces (some accessible via wetlands buffer) 20 outdoor equipment/material storage spaces 14 gravel spaces Mr. Nusser stated that there are 4 parking stalls located in the northeast side of the property. Mr. Nusser suggest removing two (2) of the parking stalls, which will allow about 20 feet. Mr. Bletcher stated that the area is a small space, and wants vehicles to have the ability to access the property without encroaching onto someone else s property. It was discussed that Suite 6 and 7 may potentially be combined to assist with the parking concern. BP 12: K Mr. Pressler agrees to provide revised architectural plans, which will indicate the floor area of each suite to reflect on the floor plan or on a table in the floorplan sheet. BP 12:L The property have two (2) trash enclosures at each end of the building, one of which have a dimension of 20x20 and the other 48x10. There is sufficient dumpster space to accommodate site size, stated Mr. Nusser. BP 12: M - Mr. Pressler acceptable/agree to a plan note to prohibit storage trailers and shipping containers form the site. BP 12: N Mr. Pressler agrees to provide monument signage no taller than 10 ft. BP 12: O Mr. Pressler stated that he agrees to no exclusive outside rental or rental outside parking areas or outside storage corrals with this plan. All tenants should be indoor tenants with ancillary outside parking. BP 12: P Mr. Pressler agrees to provide to the Zoning Officer a cumulative list/table of tenants, tenant uses, and the number of parking spaces required to each use. BP 13: A & B - Mr. Pressler agrees to provide revised plans and or documentations to address the above planning comments to the satisfaction of the Board. He further agrees to submit documentation of receipt of approvals from all outside agencies having jurisdiction. BP 13: C - As requested by the report for a testimony relative to the substantial detriment to the public s good should these variances be granted, Mr. Nusser stated his testimony, and also explained that the site operated for many years without negative impact. Page 15 of 18

16 Mr. Nusser also stated that there are restrictions and hardships associated with the access of the site. The building is unutilized, and therefore, not maintained. The approval of the application will change that, while also improving the aesthetics, property maintenance, without any negative impact. Also, it will address the environmental concerns with the property, which is to the public s benefit. Mr. Beck asked how long the applicant has owned the property. Mr. Nusser responded that the applicant has owned the property for 10 months. Ms. Wilk inquired on how long the public have been using the property? Mr. Nusser responded, that going through the property is the only means of access into the site. Mr. Bletcher stated that the site have been used for at least 20 t 25 years, specifically for heavy industrial type of work. To his knowledge the business exist since the 90 s. Ms. Urbanik inquired about the violations of 411 Whitehead Avenue. Mr. Bletcher responded that the following violations are: impervious coverage, parking nonconformity, pre-existing setbacks, design, enclosed curbing, providing only one (1) loading dock on the site (however, the applicant testified that they have added others, therefore, he has no objections with regards to that), parking lot and parameter trees. In regards the trees, the applicant needs to provide front buffer and the implantation of additional trees and request a waiver from the board. It doesn t make sense to put landscaping on the back part of this site, said Mr. Bletcher. There is also, landscape buffer non-conformity violations; however, it s not unusual for an industrial site to have something like that, stated Mr. Bletcher. The 14 graveled parking spaces are not paved, and therefore requires relief, as well. According to the Borough s ordinance, in order for a space to be considered a parking spot, it must be paved, stated Mr. Bletcher. However, it will be a benefit to not pave the parking spaces. Also, the DEP may not permit it to be paved, considering that it s located in the wetlands area. Mr. Bletcher explained that he s looking for an enclosed gravel area so that the vehicles parked in that area stays contained and doesn t grow. However, the DEP will verify that the wetland line and the resource value is what the applicant states on its plans, and will required buffering if necessary. The DEP may have their own requirements in terms of what can be done in the wetlands area and the buffer area, stated Mr. Bletcher. Since the area is somewhat pervious, it might be a better situation to keep the gravel than to do the pavement, stated Mr. Bletcher. Ms. Urbanik suggested dedicating the outdoor equipment area in the southwest corner for parking, and utilize the 14 gravel spots for storage instead. This will satisfy the parking concern, Page 16 of 18

17 stated Ms. Urbanik. Mr. Nusser stated that he wants to keep the gravel area from becoming storage. Also, the area gives closer access for the tenants to get through and from the suites. Mr. Patel reiterated that he wants to see the revised plans prior to submission to the DEP should the applicant make any such changes. According to Mr. Bletcher the borough requires, one (1) parking space per 500 sq. ft. of warehouse space; whereby most municipalities requires one (1) parking space per 5,000 sq. ft. The borough s parking requirement for the warehouse is a bit more demanding, stated Mr. Bletcher. Mr. Andre doesn t want to designate all 14 parking stalls into storage, stated Mr. Nusser. However, as an option, we can open more spaces if we use ten (10) out of the 14 spaces as storage or flex spaces and the ten (10) spaces on the southwest corner. We can also use ten (10) parking spaces on the northern area, and the gravel area, and 10 on the south west corner. That will take the 67 count to 77 parking spaces, stated Mr. Nusser. Mr. Patel informed the applicant s professionals that any changes made to the site, including parking, revised plans must be reviewed by his office prior to submission to the DEP. Mr. Pressler agrees to Mr. Patel s request. Any revisions to the plans should be verified with the engineer s office, Mr. Patel reiterated. *** PUBLIC SESSION A motion was made to open the floor to the public. With no one else present, a motion was made to close the public session. *** A motion was made by Ms. Urbanik and seconded by Ms. Farren to approve the application with all the conditions discussed to which the applicant is in agreeance as stated on record. Page 17 of 18

18 ROLL CALL ROLL CALL MOTIONED SECONDED YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT Mr. Michael Beck Mr. Byrne, Alt. 1 Mr. Clancy Mr. Evanovich Ms. Donna Farren Mr. James Jones Mr. Mayor John Krenzel Clw. Julie Meira Mr. Kevin Render Mr. John Sapata, Alt. 2 Ms. Cynthia Urbanik Ms. Cynthia Wilk, Mayor s Alt. *** ADJOURNED With no further business to conduct before the Board, a motion was made by Mr. Jones seconded by Ms. Wilk to adjourn this meeting at 8:50pm. All were in favor. Minutes prepared by: Tamar Lawful Planning Board Secretary Minutes approved at the 11/20/2018 meeting Page 18 of 18