WALL TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES STUDY SESSION CONFERENCE ROOM APRIL 15, 2015

Transcription

1 WALL TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES STUDY SESSION CONFERENCE ROOM APRIL 15, 2015 Vice Chairwoman Morrissey called to order the Study Session of the Wall Township Board of Adjustments at 7:00 PM. Members present were Chairwoman DeSarno, Attorney Geoffrey Cramer, Nance-Ellen Draper, 1 st Alternate Mark Margadonna, Robert Morris, Vice Chairwoman Wilma Morrissey, 2 nd Alternate William Newberry, Kevin Orender, Ray Slocum, Board Planner Scott Taylor, Board Engineer Charles Rooney, Planning Secretary Suzanne Rose, Recording Secretary Anne Longo. Members absent were James Gray, Township Planner John Hoffmann, Township Engineer Matthew Zahorsky. Attorney Cramer announced that this meeting was held in accordance with the Sunshine Law DISCUSSIONS Chairwoman DeSarno opens discussions stating that Mr. Higgins will be present tonight to provide testimony. Attorney Cramer indicated that there was a meeting with the attorney for applicant and attorney for objectors to discuss possibility of reducing the number of units, a berm and buffering both sides of the property line there may be some changes. Mr. Orender expresses concern wondering if the Mueller application set a precident. Mr. Taylor states that there have not been plans yet. Attorney Cramer reiterates that there may be new plans tonight. Mr. Taylor adds that there has been no chance to review yet, and wants to see if they will mitigate impacts. Ms. Morrissey states that it doesn t change the parking issue. Mr. Taylor replies that even if they reduce the number of buildings there are some impacts and wants to know why the applicant believes the location is suitable for residential in a commercially zone area. He further adds that there is a lot to this application; weigh the benefits. Chairwoman DeSarno believes there will not be a conclusion this evening. Mr. Orender agrees. Mr. Taylor states that if there were changes to the site concept, there would potentially be changes to expert testimony. The applicant has provided required parking with one garage and one behind according to RSIS standards; they also spoke about Kurtz adjoining lot having space for overflow. The RS numbers tend to work, so no major concern. The use is the issue. 48 residential units in the middle of office zone; if it were the opposite it would be difficult. He continues that the balconies are essentially looking at the parking lot of Mr. Kurtz site. There is impact. Mr. Orender adds that with summer coming, referring to the Silton Swim School, traffic on Atlantic Avenue is already a nightmare. Page 1

2 Ms. Morrissey states that it does defy the Master Plan. Mr. Taylor replies that the applicant will have to prove hardship. The office use is already on an undersized lot, it s hard to justify hardship. It is very difficult to make a variance, residential D variance because it exacerbates an already undersized lot. The Master Plan is long term. He realizes that office space is a hard sell now, but a residential vote will be forever. Their planner is the last to testify and will tie in everything else. CARRIED APPLICATIONS: BA# M2K / OMR, LLC Block 151 Lot 1, 1900 HWY 35 Zone HB-80. Application deemed complete 10/15/14. Property is located in both Wall Twp. and Spring Lake Heights. Applicant requests permission to subdivide property into two (2) separate lots. The portion of the property in Wall Twp. contains a building utilized for retail purposes with an apartment on the second (2 nd ) floor. Use, Bulk & Minor Subdivision. from 11/12/14, 2/18/15 Carried to 6/3/15 BA# Sandy Lane BKB, LLC Block 819 Lots 12 & & 1809 Atlantic Ave. Zone OR-5, Application Deemed Complete 11/13/14. Applicant proposes to reconfigure lot lines and develop lot 13 as a 48 unit multi-family community (age restricted, over 55). Applicant also proposes to construct a 5,000 square foot + addition to the existing office building on lot 12. Use/Bulk from 1/14/15, 2/4/15, 3/4/15. RESOLUTIONS: VanPelt Block 805 Lot 42 Chiesa Block 75 Lot 13 MINUTES TO BE APPROVED: 3/18/15 OTHER BUSINESS A motion was made by Mr. Orender; Seconded by Ms. Draper to enter private session ADJOURNMENT: Discussion adjourned 7:10 PM. To begin private session Page 2

3 WALL TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL MEETING ROOM APRIL 15, 2015 April 15, 2015 A regular meeting was held by the Board of Adjustment at the Municipal Complex at 7:30 PM Vice Chairwoman Morrissey called the meeting to order the 7:30 PM. SALUTE TO FLAG ROLL CALL Members present were Chairwoman DeSarno, Attorney Geoffrey Cramer, Nance-Ellen Draper, 1 st Alternate Mark Margadonna, Robert Morris, Vice Chairwoman Wilma Morrissey, 2 nd Alternate William Newberry, Kevin Orender, Ray Slocum, Board Planner Scott Taylor, Board Engineer Charles Rooney, Planning Secretary Suzanne Rose, Recording Secretary Anne Longo, Court Reporter Deborah Arnone. Members absent were, James Gray, John Hoffmann, Matt Zahorsky. SUNSHINE LAW Attorney Cramer announced that this meeting is held in accordance with the Sunshine Law. NEW APPLICATIONS CARRIED APPLICATIONS BA# M2K / OMR, LLC Block 151 Lot 1, 1900 HWY 35 Zone HB-80. Application deemed complete 10/15/14. Property is located in both Wall Twp. and Spring Lake Heights. Applicant requests permission to subdivide property into two (2) separate lots. The portion of the property in Wall Twp. contains a building utilized for retail purposes with an apartment on the second (2 nd ) floor. Use, Bulk & Minor Subdivision. from 11/12/14, 2/18/15 Carried to 6/3/15 BA# Sandy Lane BKB, LLC Block 819 Lots 12 & & 1809 Atlantic Ave. Zone OR- 5, Application Deemed Complete 11/13/14. Applicant proposes to reconfigure lot lines and develop lot 13 as a 48 unit multi-family community (age restricted, over 55). Applicant also proposes to construct a 5,000 square foot + addition to the existing office building on lot 12. Bifurcated. Use Variance and Bulk Variances from 1/14/15, 2/4/15, 3/4/15 Attorney Cramer confirms jurisdiction to proceed, noting professionals are still under oath. Attorney Aikins for the applicant provides an update for the Board that he met with Mr. & Mrs. Herro and Attorney Shipers. There is some new information and slight amendment and he would have Mr. Kurtz testify how plans were revised with regard to the bike path. Introduce additional evidence A-16 Site Plan Addendum Page 3

4 Mr. Kurtz proceeds that the Herro s are neighbors and expressed concern about the height of the buildings. With the addendum, the four buildings along the bike path would become two story/two unit buildings. The Herro s also had concerns with the buffer and Mr. Kurtz proposed a fuller buffer over evergreen plants and additional planting in the conservation easement on the Kurtz side of the bike path. If necessary they would be bonded for maintenance. Attorney Cramer asks if it is the forty foot wide easement. Mr. Kurtz replies it is approximately forty feet wide. Chairwoman DeSarno asks what is there now. Mr. Kurtz replies thin vegetation which should be supplemented because there is nothing on the back side of the Herro s property. Ms. Morrissey questions the new height being thirty feet. Mr. Kurtz affirms. Mr. Kurtz offers that he is willing to accommodate other concerns if necessary; and Attorney Aikins has nothing further. Attorney Shipers expresses his thanks for the visit with Mr. Kurtz but he has questions about A-16. He continues that the Herro s have not agreed to the modifications. Their request was that the four buildings closest to the property line be eliminated. Mr. Kurtz does not recall eliminating. Attorney Shipers refers to evergreen buffer and the conservation easement not presented prior. Mr. Kurtz replies that the berm is to be 6 feet and probably 12 feet with plantings and will grow approximately 2 feet per year to be about feet tall. Mr. Kurtz will accommodate another type of evergreen. Mr. Kurtz is agreeable. Attorney Shipers asks if Mr. Kurtz would consider eliminating two of the three story buildings and sliding the four buildings further to the north. Mr. Kurtz replies that it could be explored. Attorney Shipers has nothing more. Chairwoman DeSarno asks if there are questions of the public. Denise Greco of lot 35 (2350 Orchard Crest Blvd.) asks if Mr. Kurtz would foliate her lot lines also. Mr. Kurtz replies yes, whatever you are comfortable with. No further public questions. Attorney Aikins calls Mr. James Higgins who is sworn in and accepted by Chairwoman DeSarno as known to the Board. Mr. Higgins offers that he reviewed the application and offers his conclusions. He states the site is in mixed land uses; there is a bike path, the Atlantic Club, office warehouse, residential subdivision as well as Mueller s property, a farm, a mobile home park, and the site of Peddler s Village. The OR-5 zone provides various uses such as manufacturing, retail trades, printing and publishing, real estate offices giving a feel for what is permitted. What is proposed is not a permitted use; office expansion is permitted. It is his opinion that the site it suitable for proposal because residents can utilize the Atlantic Club; there is multi-family to the east, a mobile home park to the west (both residential) and hopefully a viable shopping center where Peddler s Village is now; the bike path adjacent to site can be utilized and he feels Page 4

5 that these are all important aspects. You will have recreation without having to get in a car. When he looks at what can be built and can operate 24 hours a day with large lighted parking lots that are fully conforming. Mr. Higgins states that census date projects a population increase of 75% over the age of 65 statewide between 2010 and Between 1990 and 2010 there has been an increase in Wall Township of those over age 60 people like to stay in their community. All zones for senior housing are fully developed, there is no space left for them. Of the larger parcels remaining, 6 of 7 don t have required width and 5 of 7 don t have required area. He feels that the surrounding area is so varied that the OR zone is a reasonable area to put this proposed development in. He feels that this proposal has a much less negative impact than other permitted uses and it would be a benefit to realign the driveway and have less impact on Atlantic Avenue. Attorney Aikins asks Mr. Higgins if it is his testimony that the bulk request be withdrawn pending a site plan application. Mr. Higgins replies that at this point he thinks it is appropriate way to approach. The real issue is the use. Attorney Aikins has no further questions. Chairwoman DeSarno asks Mr. Higgins if he sees any practical difficulties because of the exceptional shape, size, or physical features of this property. Mr. Higgins doesn t think so. Chairwoman DeSarno asks if there is anything under C1that you would use? Mr. Higgins replies not bulk request at this time. Ms. Morrissey makes a point about traffic and that with the South Wall Little League, Recycling Center, Retro Fitness, Atlantic Club, Lab Corp and doctor s offices, Silton Swim School, Atlantic Farms (especially at Halloween), Hink s Turkey Farm, and possibly a new Circle Factory outlet, and the traffic circle the traffic is already horrendous and you want to come in with more car traffic? Mr. Higgins replies that it doesn t mean adding traffic between 8AM and 5PM for office research or warehousing. You can have trucks, employees, and shifts for business possibly 24 hours a day what s proposed is only 44 residential units. The traffic generation from only 44 units will be one of the better possibilities. Ms. Morrissey asks about holidays where 44 units can have 88 cars and guests you want to overlap or overflow to Brinkerhoff. Mr. Higgins replies that if there was an overflow, it would actually make sense from a planning standpoint, because the office building not used on weekends and holidays. Attorney Aikins adds that the RSIS part of site plan, conceptually it is ok and far less impact than comparable uses that are permitted. Chairwoman DeSarno asks if there are further comments. Mr. Taylor asks about Mr. Higgins comment that by 2030 there will be a need for additional age restricted housing. Mr. Higgins offers some census information: In 2000 Wall s median age was 37.4; 2010 median age was 40.3; in 2000 County median age was 35; 2010 median age was 37.7; in 2000 State median age was 34.4; 2010 median age was 36.7; in 1990 those over age 60 in Wall Township averaged /- and in 2010 that figure went to /- and the county numbers are even greater. Page 5

6 Mr. Taylor refers to Mr. Higgins statement that there was no more vacant land available. Mr. Higgins replies that is has been developed or has been approved for development. Mr. Taylor asks if an analysis was done on the number of units. Mr. Higgins replies no. Mr. Taylor then offers concerns of the proximity of having manufacturing or 24 hour distribution to the residences. He asks if Mr. Higgins is concerned that two of the structures are immediately adjacent to offices with only 12 feet between them. Mr. Higgins replies no because in these types of residences, they don t typically tend to utilize the outdoors as a yard. The buildings would be designed so any use that is adjacent would not have substantial negative impact. Mr. Taylor then refers to the balconies on second and third floor where they would look across a close proximity. He believes that the design with windows and balconies facing adjacent commercial sites impacts those residences and could have a detrimental impact to future reinvestment in OR zone by adjacent properties. Mr. Higgins replies that the balconies could be designed so they don t look across. The specific schematics would be provided at site plan stage; any maybe some modifications to the site plan. Mr. Taylor thinks it is important to consider what can happen to this residential as well as the adjacent commercial sites and how it applies to the preservation of the Master Plan and OR zone. Chairwoman DeSarno states that she doesn t feel the office building fits it looks out of place. Ms. Morrissey adds that on the Brinkerhoff portion there is close to 5 acres, but you re asking to give acreage away... why? You re asking to expand the building, expand the parking, yet give acreage away. What if in the future they wanted to expand? Attorney Aikins replies that they looked at all the key parameters; lot coverage would still comply; building coverage would also comply; and have now withdrawn bulk variances request. Mr. Taylor suggests if the use variance is granted, the Board would essentially be endorsing the plan that s before them, because if they were to approve the use the site can t be developed at site plan unless all bulk variances are also granted at site plan. The Board s hands are tied particularly with respect to the undersized lot on Brinkerhoff site. That is part and parcel to the rear portion of that lot being included for a use that is not authorized in that zone. He continues that reducing from 4.67 to 2.35 is absolutely germane to the use variance discussion; it s clear for the Board to know that although they have withdrawn the discussion of the bulk standards, the site really can t be developed at that intensity without all of those bulk variances. At site plan approval the Board would have to do those to effectuate the plan that they granted the use variance for. Attorney Aikins differs in opinion that the Board has to approve any variances, it is the burden of proof for the applicant and that awaits the site plan process. If the Board feels that 44 units is the appropriate density, then the burden still remains with the applicant to satisfy the Board at the site plan level of review, including any and all bulk variances. Mr. Taylor feels that speaks heavily to the use. Mr. Rooney offers his thoughts that he doesn t see how the Board can determine appropriate density without looking at some of these bulk variances. If 44 units is determined number, that Board may be putting themselves in a corner at site plan in terms of accepting some things they may not want to accept to accommodate that density. Page 6

7 Attorney Aikins replies that we can t use the process of the use variance procedure to shape the site plan application. That burden remains with us. He agrees that the site plan can be of some value but it s not binding on this Board to compel the Board to grant the applicant variances as part of the site plan application. Mr. Taylor adds the number of bulk variances has some relationship to the suitability of the site - that if there was only one variance for building setback of 1 foot then that would be relatively suitable. If 70% of the units would require bulk variance approval and separations don t comply with multi-family zone then maybe the site is not appropriate for this development, or maybe not 44 units. Attorney Aikins replies that the site plan is very much in flux at this point, adding that it behooves us to roll up our sleeves, but 100% of the burden falls on us, the applicant, at site plan. Attorney Cramer offers that the applicant s attorney is trying to articulate that the site plan is still in a state of agitation in terms of how many units, buildings, and location of such. The most revised diagram is very attractive, perhaps some explanation of what that rear space would be utilized for. Mr. Shipers has a preference for eliminating 4 buildings on rear of property. Attorney Shipers feels that Mr. Taylor acutely addressed the issue that Ms. Morrissey brought up regarding special reasons. He continues by reiterating that the applicant wants to take existing 4 acre lots and whacking one in half, doubling the size of the Brinkerhoff building, shifting half of it to the other side Ms. Morrissey s question was what are the special reasons for wanting to do that. Somehow that was avoided. Her question should be addressed, it goes directly to considering use. Mr. Higgins replies that his testimony went to use, and why it is particularly suited, not to bulk variances. Attorney Cramer offers that he sees the concern by the Board, the Planner and Ms. Morrissey about the shrinkage of Brinkerhoff lot to benefit the age restricted development; the concerns run to the future. What happens if in the future they want to expand. Attorney Aikins asks that the Board recall that Ms. Brinkerhoff is a partner in this development and she is comfortable with the lot size and increase in square footage. Ms. Morrissey interjects what if the new owner wanted to expand? Mr. Higgins replies that the what if would also apply to any other lot. It is an OR-5 zone but not dedicated solely to OR-5 zoning because of the mix of uses. There are several uses that were there before the Master Plan. Mr. Orender has a problem with Mr. Higgins suggesting the Master Plan didn t know what to do so they just made it OR-5 he takes offense to that. You were not part of the Master Plan, nobody s here to testify that they were part of the Master Plan or why they made it that reason; Mr. Orender thinks Mr. Higgins is out of line making a statement like that. Mr. Higgins replies that in his experience as a planner, you do run into areas such as this. They looked at it and of all of the zones, this is the one they felt best suited to designate this area. When you look at the area it s really not the type of area that was intended when they came up with the concept of OR-5 and OR-10. They wanted larger lots, campus type developments and discussions dealt with Route 34. Mr. Orender agrees however if they wanted residential zones there, they would have put it into there as well. Mr. Higgins continues that you can t take one site and zone one site for residential purposes when there Page 7

8 are other types of uses around it. As a zoning Board you can look at the site and say the from use variances purpose and D-1 purposes there are special reasons for the granting of a variance. That is different from trying to set up a special zone for one small site in a larger zone. Chairwoman DeSarno asks if there are any questions. Attorney Shipers questions that Mr. Higgins stated that it would be unlawful for the Town Planners to have allowed residential use in this zone. Attorney Aikins objects stating that Mr. Higgins didn t characterize it as unlawful. Attorney Shipers requests Counsel to rule on the objection and ask him to answer the question. Chairwoman DeSarno asks to repeat the question. Mr. Shipers continues to ask Mr., Higgins is it your testimony that if the Town Planners had desired that residential units available to be built in this particular OR-5 zone they could have included that permitted use in this zone? Attorney Aikins again objects because there was a different question asked before, but will allow this question. Attorney Shipers continues that Mr. Orender took offense, and the question Attorney Shipers asked was if the Planners had desired for residential units to be a permitted use in this zone they could have included it in the OR-5 zone as a permitted or conditional use, could they not? They chose not to, correct? Mr. Higgins affirms. Attorney Shipers continues that Attorney Aikins indicated that Ms. Brinkerhoff had chosen to allocate, for financial reasons, to allocate her land for the larger development. Mr. Higgins did not recall that. Attorney Shipers states that a financial gain is not a special reason or would not constitute a special reason to grant a use variance, and asks what are the special reasons for cutting Brinkerhoff lot in half? Mr. Higgins comments that it ties into the overall development and he thinks the site is particularly suited for the proposed use for the reasons he gave and he thinks that there will be more public benefit if you could put more of these types of units on the site. By downsizing Brinkerhoff and still allowing the balance of that site to be otherwise developed within the parameters of the Ordinance, that satisfies the concern. Attorney Shipers states that this development could be theoretically developed via use variance on the non Brinkerhoff lot without lopping it in half. Mr. Higgins states that yes it could be developed on the one parcel without utilizing a portion of the Brinkerhoff property, but feels that lopping Brinkerhoff in half is not a fair statement. Attorney Shipers agrees stating that it certainly could be developed on the one lot without encompassing the Brinkerhoff lot. Mr. Higgins replies that you would have fewer units. Attorney Shipers states that the precepts of good planning is not to take a five acre required lot size and cut it in half for the possibility of putting more nonconforming residences on that lot, isn t that correct? Mr. Higgins disagrees stating that you have to look at individual circumstances. In this instance he believes it is good planning to do that. Attorney Shipers mentions the special reasons stating all he heard of the special reasons were a few of the buildings that are around, like the Atlantic Club. Mr. Higgins replies that was part in parcel of the special reasons. Attorney Shipers continues that other than the Atlantic Club, then mentions reasons he noted: proximity to Atlantic Club, proximity to a multi family development to the east, a trailer park to the west, a swim club, a farm, a non functioning shopping center, and a bike path other than those proximities, what are Page 8

9 your other special reasons why this lot should be allowed to be a non conforming use? Mr. Higgins replies that this lot is in an area where mixed uses, some of which can be utilized by the residents of this development, including the medical offices adjacent to it and commercial within walking distance, including the Atlantic Club, including the bike path. All of those things go into whether or not there is a particular suitability for the site. The senior population is increasing with a continued need for this type of housing. It does enhance the purpose of the municipal land use law. Attorney Shipers continues regarding the realignment of the driveway, asking if that is a special reason? Mr. Higgins replies that goes into the whole aspect of the application, the benefits of this application. In and of itself not special, but when put in with everything else, it adds to special reasons. Chairwoman DeSarno asks if there are any public questions. Ms. Madden of 2418 Orchard Crest Blvd. asks when was the Master Plan dated? Mr. Higgins replies around mid 2000, 2005 maybe. Ms. Madden then asks the Board/Planner as applications come through Wall, what is trending in this community? She is trying to understand the appetite of applicants for different types of manufacturing in the Township. If this didn t go through, if it wasn t residential, we re painting the worst case scenario with major manufacturing with steam pipes and things. She doesn t think that s the reality, but is there any documentation on trends? Mr. Taylor interjects that the Master Plan was re-iterated in 1999 and again in 2005 when zoned OR-5. Chairwoman DeSarno adds that the County Planning board would have trends. Mr. Taylor recites some Master Plan discussion regarding OR zone intent was to encourage office and research uses favoring corporate campuses and office park development and adds that the town has to re-examine the master plan about every 10 years, often more frequently. The Board is required to provide a report of its findings through the course of each year to the governing body along with recommendations. If we were finding in the OR-5 zone or some other zone that it s zoned for this but everybody is asking for this, the governing body can look to potentially rezone. Ms. Madden states that she is not here to represent Orchard Crest, but that she cares about Wall Township. She asks about the point made concerning acreage and there is no other site suitable for this type of development is there nothing available? Mr. Higgins replies that there is nothing in town for this type residential density. Nothing else zoned for this development. There might be other sites that are appropriate, but that s not a proof this applicant has to make, rather whether this site is particularly suited for this development. Chairwoman DeSarno adds that maybe another parcel could be presented. Chairwoman DeSarno asks if anyone else has questions. There were none. Attorney Aikins extends an invitation asking the Board visit the site and the will come back to the Board to sum up. Page 9

10 The application is carried to 5/6/15. April 15, 2015 Attorney Cramer makes mention of BOA-3 for water and sewer and O-1 a letter from Michael Cahill, Esq. Attorney Aikins asks that it not be placed in evidence yet, it has not been reviewed. Attorney Shipers asks if the Board will entertain objector evidence at summation and if it would be May 6 or a subsequent date? Chairwoman DeSarno affirms and states depending upon how involved it becomes it may be on a subsequent date. Attorney Cramer adds that the Board has a protocol that when there are other applications before the Board that evening, each application is given a maximum time of 50 minutes to present a case and offer objectors a chance to be heard. If time runs out the Board reserves the right to continue the hearing. Ms. Morrisey asks you want us to come back to the site? Attorney Aikins affirms. Discussion is adjourned at 9 PM. RESOLUTIONS VanPelt Block 805 Lot 42 Motion by Morris; Second by Draper. All in favor Chiesa Block 75 Lot 13 Motion by Slocum; Second by Morrissey. All in favor MINUTES TO BE APPROVED: 3/18/15 Motion by Morrissey; Second by Draper. All in favor OTHER BUSINESS: There being no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made by Slocum; seconded by Morrissey, and unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 PM. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned 9:12PM Respectively submitted, Anne Longo Recording Secretary Page 10