Open public meeting statement:  The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Richard Innella, and a statement was made that the meeting was duly advertised and met all of the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act.  Those present were:  Mark Utter, Ted Brace, Sharon Tufaro, Gene Crawford, Glenn Barbagallo, Darren Ponce, George Zitone, Ron Ruberto, Charles Teufert, Katherine Snyder, Richard Innella, Sharon M. Yarosz, the board secretary, William Haggerty Esq., the board attorney, and Michael O’Krepky, the board engineer.

Those absent were:  None.

FLAG SALUTE

MINUTES

The Minutes of December 14, 2006 Land Use Board meeting were reviewed.  A Motion was made by Glenn Barbagallo and seconded by Gene Crawford to approve the Minutes of the December 14, 2006 Land Use Board meeting.  Roll Call:  Mark Utter, abstain; Ted Brace, yes; Sharon Tufaro, abstain; Glenn Barbagallo, yes; Darren Ponce, yes; George Zitone, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Richard Innella, abstain.  The Motion was carried.

RESOLUTIONS

Zitone Construction & Supply Co., Inc. – LUB 06-24 – Preliminary Major Subdivision – Block 7, Lot 33.30:

The Resolution was reviewed.  A Motion was made by Ted Brace and seconded by Glenn Barbagallo to approve the Resolution for Zitone Construction & Supply Co., Inc. for a Preliminary Major Subdivision.  Roll Call:  Ted Brace, yes; Darren Ponce, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Glenn Barbagallo, yes.  The Motion was carried.

CONCEPT APPLICATION

Richard Carlson/Community Corporation of Highpoint, Inc. – LUB 07-01 – Concept Application:

Appearing before the board was their attorney, David Wallace, and Mr. Cosier, the Administrator from the Community Corp. and Richard Carlson.

Mr. Wallace indicated that this is a Concept Application which arose out of the conversation with the building department about the intended use of a condominium in the High Point Country Club.  The town is taking the position that use of the particular space as a storage facility, as a garage, would not be legal.  He feels what is being proposed is exactly what this space was intended to be used for. 

Mr. Wallace gave a brief history of the High Point Country Club.  He indicated that this was a situation were it was not zoned into existence, it was Ordered into existence.  There was no Community Corporation when the zone was set up.  The Community Corporation was ordered to be created by Judge Stanton. Judge Stanton’s Ordered that the R4 Zone accommodate this community corporation that he created.  They are not creating a new commercial venture to go into a residential space.  This was something that was intended to be there from the beginning.  This community has always needed a place for its vehicles, for storage of materials, such as grass seed or sand, much the same as any homeowner would.  The Community Corporation has done this at various places throughout the R4 zone.  Since CCH has sold the club house, it has had to rent space or make other arrangements.  Now it does have the opportunity to get into a space which is uniquely suited and restricted from any other use arguably.  He believes that this garage space is an allowed use for CCH.  The space in question is the basement of a multi-unit condominium.   Mr. Wallace handed out pictures to the board of the unit.  He indicated that the space was actually set up to be storage for the units that are upstairs.  The master deed actually makes a restriction upon the use of that particular facility.  It was always intended that this basement would be used for storage.  However, it has been set up legally as a separate condominium item with a separate lot and block.  While the R4 Zone intends that garages be accessory structures to residences.  This is really a garage that is an accessory structure with the common eliminates of a residential project.  Basically, he stated, that the intended use is no greater impact than any residential garage would be.  They will not be storing gasoline or any hazardous material.  This will be a workshop with a few vehicles, and materials for minor repairs to lawns and sidewalks.

Mr. Cosier indicated that where basements are usually considered ancillary uses of residences above, the intended use that CCH intends for this unit is much the same as to what a homeowner would have in a garage or basement.  They take care of roads, therefore, they would have bags of cold patch, they would have grass seed, all the normal things that a homeowner would have in its garage.  They do not intend to do any welding; they will not be storing any hazardous materials.  This is purely a maintenance and storage facility.  He further indicated that this unit is unique in a couple of different ways.  The building, of which this unit is a part, is one of four buildings which were filed under the same master deed in 1975.  201 Old Chimney has the same sister space which, according to the master deed, is dedicated towards the storage of golf carts.  There are a few dozen golf carts in there.  203 Old Chimney is a space which CCH occupied on a rental basis for many years for the same exact purpose without any problems or complaints from residents or neighboring properties.  This is what they are proposing in 205 Old Chimney; where they have the opportunity to not only continue renting the unit, but also to purchase the unit.  With this, they would like to be in a position where as owners in this building, they could also help to make a positive impact on the appearance of the building from the exterior as well as the sister buildings on either side. 

Mr. Haggerty indicated that the applicant has made application to the zoning officer and the application was denied based upon the use that is being proposed for the building.  It is a residential zone and it is a non-residential type use.  The applicant has the option either to walk away from it or they could come before the board with a Use Variance to permit the proposed use in the building and/or an appeal of the position of the Zoning Officer.  He further stated that he reviewed the Zoning Officer’s decision and feel it was correct. 

Mr. Carlson indicated that the master deed distinctly says that this unit is not for residential use.  Mr. Haggerty agrees, however, he feels the township has zoning authority over the uses at High Point Country Club.  He feels that the Master Deed does not over ride the position of the township.

Mr. Utter indicated that this situation came before the township committee for the approval of the purchase of this unit by CCH.  He further noted that the township attorney indicated that the township committee could not vote for the purchase of this property by CCH if the property needed Land Use Board approval or a variance. 

NEW APPLICATIONS

Montague Township Board of Education – Athletic Field:

Mr. Innella stepped down from this application.  Mr. Barbagallo took over as Chairman of the meeting.

Mr. Haggerty indicated that this application was just an adversary type application.  The jurisdiction of the board is limited to comment and suggestions. 

Mr. Innella appeared before the board as the President of the School Board and indicated that last year, the school board found that they are in a position that they had a little money left over and knowing that the community is short on recreational fields, they got together with the township and came to an agreement for the project, as long as they keep it under $17,400 so they did not have to go out to bid.  The agreement with the township is that they would supply the equipment; the school board would pay for the man power and the fuel to run the machine.  They are trying to do this at a reasonable price.  They would like to build 2 ball fields in the top area behind the school playground.  He further stated that the plans will have to be reviewed by the State.  The school will maintain the fields.  The recreational organizations in the township will have to ask for permission to use the fields which will be done through the Board of Education.  They will have to provide the dates and times of the use. 

A Motion was made by Gene Crawford and seconded by George Zitone to send a letter to the school board recommending approval of the proposed athletic field.  All were in favor.  The Motion was carried.

Mr. Innella returned to the meeting and took over as Chairman of the meeting.

ADPP Enterprises – LUB 06-23 – Amended Site Plan – Block 4, Lot 6:

Appearing before the board was the applicant’s attorney, Louis D’Arminio, their engineer, Calisto Bertin and their Planner, Kenneth Nelson. Mr. Bertin and Mr. Nelson were sworn in by the board attorney.  Mr. Bertin and Mr. Nelson gave their qualifications to the board and were accepted as expert witnesses.

Mr. D’Arminio indicated that they would like to make additional improvements to the site which include adding two fuel dispensers for the cars with a canopy, an addition to the existing convenience store and some other associated parking and relocations and improvements that will be described by the board engineer.  There is one variance for the setback for the canopy.  The canopy will extend the existing canopy.  It will not be any further to the front yard setback as it currently exists.

Mr. D’Arminio marked aerial photographs of the site as Exhibits “A-1a”, “A-1b”, “A-1c” and “A-1d”.  Mr. Bertin indicated that these are photographs that they obtained from the Internet.  Exhibit “A-1a” is a photograph of the site and the surrounding properties; “A-1b” is a photograph of the site; “A-1c” is a photograph of the existing convenience store; and “A-1d” is a photograph of the shed on the north side of the site.  Mr. Bertin described the existing site which is a 54,000 square foot site with a canopy which is perpendicular to Route 23.  Underneath the canopy is the gasoline island with a small convenience store.  Behind the store are diesel islands.  There are 3 driveways to the site.  The driveway on the right is the driveway that the trucks enter.  The other 2 driveways are for the cars. 

Mr. D’Arminio marked as Exhibit “A-2” the location survey, which also shows the site as it exists.  He also presented Exhibit “A-3” which is a landscape rendering.

Mr. Bertin indicated that the existing store is 600 square feet.  They propose to put an addition in front of this building approximately 384 square feet.  The entire proposed building will be 984 square feet.  They want to extend the front of the building.  They also want to remove the existing shed on the property at the north end.  The extension of the building is why they want to take down the shed, to move the storage from that shed to the new addition. 

Mr. Bertin indicated that the driveway entrances will remain the same.  The parking on the north side will remain the same.  They want to extend the gasoline islands.  There are 4 islands there, they want to add 2 more islands and extend the canopy over those islands.

Mr. Bertin indicated that they are not changing any signage. 

Mr. Bertin submitted to the board Exhibit “A-4” which is the elevations of the property.  He explained to the board the layout of the existing convenience store.  The store has a reach in cooler, a couple of racks of snacks and a counter.  They are proposing to replace the reach in cooler with a walk in cooler.  The reach in cooler blows to much hot air out into the store which in turn makes the air conditioning turns on in the store.  The walk in cooler should resolve this issue.  The walk in cooler will have the condenser on the roof of the building.  The store will not be extended; this addition will provide more of a waiting area and maybe another snack rack.  The addition will match the brick siding.  The fascia across the top of the building will match the canopy.

Mr. Bertin submitted to the board Exhibit “A-5” a Canopy Design.  Mr. Bertin described the canopy and the extension of the canopy.

Mr. Bertin indicated that there will be no changes to the driveway entrances and the traffic flow.  He did indicate at the present time there is parking by the entrance driveway for the help.  They are proposing a handicapped parking space there.  They show a loading space in front of the building for the suppliers.  However, after reviewing the plans, they felt that this area marked as the loading space could be another parking space.  Therefore, they would like to amend the proposal and remove the loading zone and replace it with the parking space.  The deliveries can be made from one of the diesel fueling isles.  He indicated also that there is no change in the drainage. 

Mr. Bertin indicated that with the new canopy, they intend to put some additional lights underneath the canopy that is shown on the plan.  The existing lighting has 2 lights in a row.  They are proposing 2 lights underneath the new section of the canopy.  He noted that the plans show 3 lights under the existing and 3 new proposed lights, which is incorrect.  He noted that there is a landscaped island between the driveways.  There are a few shrubs on there at the present time, which is also the septic system.  He further noted that there is a fence around the perimeter with some mulch in front of it and some green area.  Beyond the fence is the bank of the brook.  They are not touching anything behind the fence. 

Mr. Bertin indicated that there is presently a dumpster out on the pavement in the back of the site.  They are proposing to fence in the dumpster and move it a little bit south. 

Mr. Bertin indicated that from a DOT standpoint this does not require any approvals. 

Mr. Bertin reviewed Mr. O’Krepky’s report dated January 4, 2007:

“3” Site Plan Review:  a) To improve pedestrian safety.  I recommend the line striping on the east side of the building to extend the full length of the proposed concrete area.  The applicant agreed to comply.  B)  This site plan proposes disturbance of an area less than 5,000 square feet; therefore the site does not require review of the Soil Conservation District. However, being the Montague Township Stormwater Management Plan Coordinator, I am required to request the following: i) Add a silt fence along the west side of the property to contain any potential silt runoff from the proposed disturbance of the removal of the frame building and installation of the curbing.  C)  Due to the fact this application proposes changes to a property fronting on a NJ State Highway this application will be subject to a letter of approval/non-applicability by the NJDOT.  Mr. Bertin indicated that a DOT permit is required when the applicant increases the peak hour traffic by more than 100 trips and 10% for the day.  The DOT looks at service stations as gas only, gas and repairs and gas and convenience store.  This is a gas and convenience store.  They are expanding the gas with convenience store but it is still under the threshold of 2000 square feet.  Any construction under 2000 square feet does not require a permit.  If the board engineer requires, they could obtain a letter from the DOT indicating a permit is not required. 

Mr. Bertin summarized the application that the purpose for the expansion is to accommodate the customers that already exist and at the same time, they are expanding the store to have a bigger cashier area so they can more properly service the customers.

Mr. O’Krepky requested that the applicant supply him with a letter with the DOT standards and the sample calculations, this will be enough to satisfy item “3c” of his report.

Mr. O’Krepky questioned Mr. Bertin about the removal of the shed and if they intend to replace the fence or extend it.  Mr. Bertin indicated that they plan to fill in the void with a new fence. 

Mr. O’Krepky questioned Mr. Bertin about the dumpster and the proposed enclosure.  He indicated it was not clear on the site plan.  Mr. Bertin indicated that they are proposing to move the dumpster over and put an enclosure around it.  He also stated that there is a container in the back by the dumpster which will also be moved over.  The container is for storage.  Mr. O’Krepky indicated that the dumpster and enclosure and the container will also require variances that the applicant will have to request.  The variances are for rear and side yard setback for the accessory structure. 

Mr. O’Krepky indicated that on the plans the applicant showed a 10’ x 25’ loading area.  If that is removed, as suggested by Mr. Bertin, and replaced with an additional parking stall, this will require a variance for the zone because the zone does require a loading area.

A Motion was made by Glenn Barbagallo and seconded by Ted Brace to deem this application complete.  All were in favor.  The Motion was carried.

Mr. Brace questioned if the trailer was on the original site plan.  Mr. Bertin indicated that it was not on the original site plan. 

Mr. Utter questioned the lighting on the applicant’s plan.  He indicated that the plan shows 5’ candles spilling out into Route 23.  He has a concern about this for the people leaving the Shoprite parking lot, turning south on Route 23, what kind of glare is that going to produce to those people entering onto the highway.  Mr. O’Krepky indicated that the passenger will experience 5 foot candles and the driver’s will be somewhere between 5 and 1 foot candles.  Mr. Utter indicated that he is not concerned about the light level in the road; it is the glare from the fixtures.  Mr. Bertin indicated that for the road lights along the road, they can put an internal shield which goes inside which will cut down on the glare. 

Mr. O’Krepky indicated to Mr. Bertin that with regard to the trash enclosure, he would like to see what type of surface the trash enclosure will be on, the type of fence and gate around the trash.  He would also like to have the exact location of the container.  Mr. Bertin asked that he will supply this information to Mr. O’Krepky for his review and approval if the board would allow this as a condition of approval.  He further indicated that the dumpster will be on a concrete pad and they will put a solid fence around it.  They have a black aluminum picket fence right now and they will match this.  The fence will be black vinyl coated chain link with black slats. 

This matter was opened to the public for this witness.

Appearing before the board was Reginald Cole with a concern about the center driveway entrance.  He felt that this entrance should be eliminated.  He feels it is a safety problem.  Mr. Bertin indicated that this is for an entrance only.  Mr. Cole indicated that people use it as an exit also.  Mr. D’Arminio indicated that he will discuss this with his client.  They suggested that they will put a sign there that this is not an exit.  They do not want to eliminate the driveway. 

Appearing before the board was Jason Dunn with a concern about the air conditioning units.  He wanted to know if the units will be visible from the street and if they are will they be hidden.  Mr. Bertin indicated that the units are small and on the site you will not see the units. You may see the top of the units from across the street.  At the present time there are units there now and the fascia does cover most of it.

There being no further public.  This matter was closed to the public.

Appearing before the board was Mr. Nelson, the applicant’s planner. 

Mr. Nelson stated that the site is in the C2 Zone located on Route 23 in close proximity to Route 84.  In the Montague Master Plan which was adopted in 2004, this area is designated as a proposed center.  It is one of the major commercial areas within the township.  The subject property contains an existing service and convenience store.  There are 4 service stations in that immediate area.  The primary purpose of this application is to allow this site to remain competitive with the competition in the area.  The expansion is a modest expansion.  The convenience store will still be a relatively small convenience store.  There will only be six dispensers, which is smaller than the other gas stations.  The Use is a conditional use.  There are some non-conformities associated with this site that are not being worsened.  It is his understanding that the board is taking the position that this is to be treated as a permitted use.  There is a variance for the canopy which is simply being extended from the existing canopy.  It would be very unusual, if not very odd for the dispenser to be put in and not have a canopy over it.  It will also violate current industries standards.  The dispensers and the canopy could not be relocated anywhere on the property in terms of practicality.  The proposed dispensers and canopy take up a very small portion of the front yard on the site.  The property is 334’ from one end to the other.  The proposed canopy extension is about 28’.  The canopy extension is taking up less than 10% of the frontage of the property. 

The required setback in the C2 zone is 60’.  The canopy will be setback about 8’ from the right of way line and about 20’ from the edge of the pavement.  It is not being set any closer than the existing portion of the canopy.  This variance clearly falls under the C1 section of municipal land use law with respect to variances.  He stated that there are no detriments to this plan.  The visual impact to this extension will be minimal because it is not a solid building, it is only a roof.

Mr. Nelson referred to the other variances with respect to the dumpster, screening and container area.  He indicated that this will make for better operation on the site.  It will make the site more efficient.  He believes the board can grant this variance on the C2 provision of the municipal land use law.  The benefits substantially outweigh any detriments.  If they were to place the dumpster within the required setbacks, it would be right in front of where the diesel isles are.  Mr. Haggerty indicated it would be more concealed in the rear from the public. 

Mr. Zitone questioned if the convenience store extension was for expanded use of a subway or any other store of that nature.  Mr. Nelson indicated it was just for the convenience store and storage. 

Mr. Teufert indicated that part of the existing fence is on a different lot behind the trash enclosures.  The applicant agreed to move the fence onto their lot if possible.

A lengthy discussion was held with regard to the middle entrance to the site.  Mr. Bertin indicated that they are not willing to close this entrance.  He suggested to the board that a sign be placed for no left turn with a right turn only.  The applicant agreed to give the township a Title 39 or right a letter and make the application so the township can enforce this.

This matter was opened to the public.  There was no public participation.  This matter was closed to the public.

Mr. Haggerty summarized the application.  He indicated that the applicant is seeking a final site plan approval to permit the applicant to add 2 dispensers, extend the canopy, enlarge the existing convenience store, move the dumpster and enclose it, move the storage container, and remove the shed from the property and extend the fence in that area, and change the loading zone to a parking space.  He further indicated that the conditions of approval were to obtain DOT approval if required or satisfaction if not required by submitting a letter to the board engineer, light shield for the lights closest to Route 23 for the canopy, the type of enclosure for the dumpster and the surface on which the dumpster will be placed will be subject to the board’s engineer approval, install a no left turn sign at the center entrance, and they will bring the encroachment fence back into the site. He further indicated that there are Variances for the front yard setback for the canopy, the elimination of the dedicated loading zoning, side yard and rear yard setback variances for the accessory structures (the dumpster structure and the container unit).

Mr. Bertin indicated that according to the survey there is an overlap of the property lines between the McDonalds and this site.  The fence is just off the curb line for the service station.  He is not ready to concede that it is on the McDonald’s property.  The surveyors just could not reconcile this overlap.  They will correct the fence in the back, however, they will try to reconcile this deviation with the overlap of the two properties.

A Motion was made by Glenn Barbagallo and seconded by Ted Brace to approve the amended site plan application as stated in Mr. Haggerty’s summary and the required variances.  Roll Call:  Mark Utter, yes; Ted Brace, yes; Sharon Tufaro, yes; Glenn Barbagallo, yes; Darren Ponce, yes; George Zitone, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Richard Innella, yes.  The Motion was carried.

VOUCHERS

The vouchers were reviewed.  A Motion was made by Darren Ponce and seconded by Gene Crawford to approve the following vouchers:

1)  KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Crown Aggregates (escrow) in the amount of $112.50; and

2)  KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Anthony (escrow) in the amount of $187.50; and

3)  KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Zitone (escrow) in the amount of $562.50; and

4)  KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Monjoy (escrow) in the amount of $787.50; and

5)  KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Crown Aggregates (escrow) in the amount of $112.50; and

6)  KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Crown Aggregates (escrow) in the amount of $37.50; and

7)  KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding General Administration (December) in the amount of $300.00; and

8)  New Jersey Planning Officials (Membership Dues 2007) in the amount of $295.00.

Roll Call:  MarkUtter, yes; Ted Brace, yes; Sharon Tufaro, yes; Glenn Barbagallo, yes; Darren Ponce, yes; George Zitone, yes; Ron Ruberto, yes; Gene Crawford, yes; Katherine Snyder, yes; Charles Teufert, yes; and Richard Innella, yes.  The Motion was carried.

CORRESPONDENCE

The correspondence was reviewed.  No formal action was taken.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The meeting was opened to the public.  There was no public participation.  The meeting was closed to the public.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, a Motion was made by Glenn Barbagallo and seconded by George Zitone to adjourn the meeting.  All were in favor.  The Motion was adjourned.

Minutes prepared by:
SHARON M. YAROSZ
Land Use Board Secretary