Open public meeting statement: The meeting was called to Order by Chairman, George Zitone, 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: Jason Dunn as Mayor Designee, Charles Teufert, Sharon Tufaro, Glenn Barbagallo, Darren Ponce, Richard Innella, Ron Ruberto, Gene Crawford, Katherine Snyder, George Zitone, William Haggerty, Esq., the board attorney, Jack O’Krepky, the board engineer, and Sharon M. Yarosz, the board secretary.

Those absent were: Glenn Plotsky (excused)

MINUTES

The minutes of the July 10, 2008 Land Use Board meeting were reviewed.  A Motion was made by Ms. Crawford and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to approve the Minutes of the July 10, 2008 Land Use Board Meeting.  Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, abstain; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Ms. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, abstain.  The motion was carried.

Clint & Gina Rosenfeld – LUB 08-02 – Block 48.01, Lot 21.02 – Height Variance:

Mr. Teufert, Mr. Dunn, and Mrs. Tufaro stepped down from this application.

Appearing before the board was the applicants, Clint and Gina Rosenfeld.  Mr. and Mrs. Rosenfeld were sworn in by the board attorney.

Mr. Haggerty indicated to the board that the applicant’s were before the board in February, 2008 and was granted a height variance, which decision was memorialized in March, 2008.  The applicants are appearing this evening for a modification of this relief because the height would exceed 10% of the maximum height permitted in the zone.

Mr. Rosenfeld indicated that the variance approval for the height was for 38’6” from the lowest point of the grade to the peak of the roof.   He indicated that house itself from the bottom of the siding to the peak of the roof is 38’6”. He was under the impression that they were going to push the grade to the bottom of the siding.  However, he was informed by the building inspector that the grade had to be a least 6” below the siding.  He had Charles LaDuc do an as built survey of the property and the height from the lowest point of the grade to the peak of the roof is 39’86”. 

This matter was opened to the public.

Appearing before the board was Reginald R. Cole.   He indicated that this house can not be seen from Fox Hollow.  He is the only one that can see the house.  He further stated that he is favor of this variance. 

There being no further public participation, this matter was closed to the public.

A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to grant the variance request of the applicant to a height not to exceed 40’.  Roll Call:  Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes.  The Motion was carried. 

Mrs. Rosenfeld requested that the board grant a waiver of the reading of the Resolution in order for them to proceed for a temporary C/O.  A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to waive the reading of the Resolution .  Roll Call:  Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes.  The Motion was carried.

Mr. Dunn, Mr. Teufert and Mrs. Tufaro returned to the meeting.

ADPP Enterprises, Inc. – LUB 08-01 – Block 2, Lot 6 – Route 23 – Preliminary & Final Site Plan:

Appearing before the board as the applicant’s attorney, Gregory Meese, and their engineer, Calisto Bertin. Mr. Bertin indicated that he was still under oath from the previous meeting.

Mr. Haggerty indicated that at the previous meeting the board voted on a number of variances.  The board did not grant a variance on the canopy setback.  The applicant at that time was asked to contact the shopping center at the Tri State Mall to see if they would consider selling the applicant some property to make the lot more conforming and achieve a greater setback for the canopy. 

Mr. Meese indicated that he received a letter dated August 14, 2008 from the objector’s (Petrozino, Inc.) attorney, Ursula Leo of Laddey Clark and Ryan, stating that they have no further objections to ADPP’s application and will not be appearing this evening at the hearing.  Mr. Meese submitted a copy of the letter to the board, which letter was marked as Exhibit “A-14”. 

Mr. Meese further indicated that the board had a question with regard to the NJDOT application.  He received a letter from the NJDOT dated June 27, 2008 indicating that they will grant the access permit as applied for.  This letter was marked as Exhibit “A-15”.  Mr. Innella questioned Mr. Bertin if the DOT approval was with the changes that were made by the board to the access.  Mr. Bertin indicated that the changes requested by the board were the plans submitted to the NJDOT.

Mr. Meese further indicated that they have spoke to the Managing Agent for the Tri State Mall. He indicated that because of the location of the septic system serving the mall, they will not entertain the applicant’s offer to purchase the property from them.  Mr. Meese submitted to the board as Exhibit “A-16” a confirming letter from his office to Nina Kilroy, Managing Agent of the Tri State Mall.  Mr. Bertin reviewed for the board the location of the Tri State Malls septic system and why it would not make sense from an engineering point of view.  He referred to Exhibit “A-12” which shows what would appear to be vacant land behind the subject property to the southeast.  It is vacant land, but it contains the septic system for the shopping center.  If they were to do any repairs or expansions to the septic system, it would need to be in the area behind the subject property.  Therefore, they were not interested in selling this portion of their land.  He further indicated that the Tri State Mall did give him a copy of their site plan to confirm this. 

Mr. Meese questioned Mr. Bertin if he was able to move the canopy back any further off of Route 23 as originally proposed.  Mr. Bertin indicated that they have moved the canopy back from 17’ to 22’.  He further indicated that they have increased the landscape island.  They took 2’ off the street side of the canopy and a couple feet off the south side of the canopy.  By reducing the canopy on the south side they were able to move it back a couple of feet without violating the rear yard setback.  They have, therefore, increased the setback by 5’.  Mr. Bertin presented to the board a revised landscape plan, which was marked as Exhibit “A-17”.  He indicated that there were comments made that the street side island was a little sparse.  Therefore, they added shrubs in the grass area.  They also added dogwood trees and some flowerbeds to the site (5 trees and 58 shrubs were added in total).  Mr. Meese indicated that the canopy is necessary for the service station to operate. 

Appearing before the board was Roger DeNicia, the applicant’s planner.  Mr. DeNicia noted that he was still under oath from a previous meeting.  Mr. Meese questioned Mr. DeNicia if the revision of the canopy setback changes his prior planning testimony.  Mr. DeNicia indicated that it does not change any of his prior testimony and it would strengthen it because the setback is increased.  He indicated that the canopy proposed is very common for a service station in this area.  He stated that there would not be any detriment to the community or zone plan with the granting of the requested variance of 22’ instead of 60’ as required by ordinance for the canopy.  He indicated that the setback of the canopy has no interference with traffic either on or off the site, views, or the obstruction of light and air.  The canopy is setback sufficiently to not cause any impact to the site itself and any other site.  The canopy provides the benefits that have been previously testified to and because it provides those benefits it advances the purposes of planning that are listed in the Land Use Law.  He further stated that the proposed canopy setback is slightly better than the existing structure that is on the property today, which is 21’.  By approving a variance the board would be increasing the setback, because the current house is in a non-conforming situation. 

This application was opened to the public.  There being no public participation, this matter was closed to the public.

A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mr. Ponce to approve the canopy setback of 22’ and to approve the Preliminary and Final Site Plan as submitted with the conditions.  Roll Call:  Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, no; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, no; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, no; Ms. Crawford, no; and Mr. Zitone, no.  The Motion was denied.

Mr. Meese requested that the board reconsider their decision because they have approved everything else on the site.  Mr. Haggerty indicated that he was troubled by the vote of the board and the defense of it in court. He further indicated that there are other sites in the area with canopy setbacks that are much less than what the applicant is proposing.  The board required the applicant to try and purchase additional lands, which they tried to do and the owner was unwilling to sell them property.  The proposed use is a permitted use by the ordinance.  The applicant could remove the canopy and make it an old fashion station, but there was testimony that it was a safety factor for the employees and the public.  Mr. Bertin indicated that the application started out with a canopy setback of 9’ and they have moved it several times to get to 22’.  He stated that he can not make any substantial change to the canopy. 

Mr. Teufert indicated that the applicant did not convince him that this is the best use of the property with all the variances that are being required.  Mr. Meese indicated that this is not a Use Variance application because a gas station/convenience store is a permitted use.  Mr. Barbagallo indicated that he feels this is not the best use for this property.  He feels there are uses that would have less of an impact on this non-conforming piece of property.  Mr. Meese indicated that it is not the applicant’s burden on a permitted use to rule out any other possible use of a piece of property. 

A Motion was made by Mr. Ruberto and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to reconsider the previous motion and to approve the setback request of 22’ and the preliminary and final site plan.  Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes;  Mr. Teufert, no; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, no; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes.  The Motion was carried.

Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless – LUB 08-02 – Block 24, Lot 1 – Preliminary & Final Site Plan & Variance:

Mr. Dunn, Mr. Teufert and Mrs. Tufaro stepped down from this application due to the fact that it was a “D” Variance.

Appearing before the board was the applicant’s attorney, Richard Schneider, Esq., their architect, Frank Colasurdo, their Radio Frequency Engineer, Chad Jacobsen, and their planner, William Masters.  Mr. Colasurdo, Mr. Jacobsen and Mr. Masters were sworn in by the board attorney.  They also gave their qualifications to the board and were accepted as expert witnesses.  

Mr. Haggerty indicated that the applicants are before the board for a co-location on an existing cell tower.  He indicated that because of the zone that the tower is in it is a Use Variance because it is not permitted in the zone, however, the tower already exists. 

Mr. Schneider indicated that it is an application to co-locate a wireless communication facility on an existing tower.  The property in question is Block 24, Lot 1 in Montague Township.  He further stated that the front portion of the property off of Ranger Lane is located in Wantage Township.  However, the tower, itself, and the improvements proposed are all located in Montague Township.  The tower that is presently located on this site is 218’ in height inclusive of existing antennas.  Verizon Wireless is proposing to install its antennas at the 190’ level.  They are also proposing a 12’ x 30’ equipment shelter.  It is proposing to extend the existing fence with one foot of barbed wire.  The existing fence currently is  7’.  This property is located in the CD Zone district and the use proposed is not permitted.  However, the purpose and intent of the wireless ordinance of Montague Township encourages co-location on existing structures.  The only other variance requested is that the setback be the height of the tower from the property line.  This proposal does not comply to the rear property line, however, the tower already exists.  He stated that this is pointed out in the township’s engineer report as an existing condition. 

Appearing before the board was Frank Colasurdo, the applicant’s architect.  Mr. Colasurdo presented to the board Exhibit “A-1” which is a colored version of the applicant’s site plan, sheet Z-3.  Mr. Colasurdo explained to the board the layout of the site.  He indicated that the site has a municipal split.  A portion of the property is in Montague Township and a portion of the property is in Wantage Township.  The site is accessed by Ranger Lane in Wantage Township.  There are two existing towers on the property.  One tower is located in Montague Township and one tower is in Wantage Township.  The tower that Verizon is proposing to install their antennas on is in Montague Township.  They are proposing a 12’ x 30’ pre-fabricated equipment shelter.  The tower in Montague Township is 218’ and the tower in Wantage Township is 120’. 

Mr. Colasurdo referred to sheet Z-4 of the site, which is the equipment plan and site elevation.  He indicated in the North, East and West of the tower, Verizon is proposing to install 4 antennas in each corner for a total of 12 antennas.  The South of the tower they are proposing to expand the fence area (49’ x 25’9”), inside the this fence area is where they are proposing the equipment shelter.  The equipment shelter houses the radio equipment that is used in conjunction with the facility.  They are not proposing any improvements to the access way from Wantage Township through Ranger Lane.

Mr. Schneider question Mr. Colasurdo as to the maintenance requirement of the site.  Mr. Colasurdo indicated that the maintenance would be once every four to six weeks.  The equipment is designed to be unmanned.  It does not require any water or produce any sewage and does not have any permanent employees.  It will require a 200 amp electrical service and a telephone line.  The shelter does not produce any smoke or noise that would exceed any of NJ DEP Noise Standards.  It does not produce any odor, glare or vibrations.  It will not produce any traffic.  They are proposing one light fixture with approximately ½ a foot-candle 4’ past the proposed fence to the interior of their lot.  The light is a 42-watt or 70-watt light bulb shielded down with a motion censor.  It is there if a technician needs to come there during the night to work on the equipment.  He indicated the ordinance requires that the tower be setback the height of the tower from the property line.  They do not meet the rear yard setback requirement, however, it is an existing condition.  The tower already exists, they are just co-locating on the tower. 

Mr. Barbagallo questioned Mr. Colasurdo if there is a generator in the equipment shelter.  He indicated that there is a generator in the building that is exercised once a week for one hour during the day, which will meet the requirements of the NJ DEP Noise Standards.  Mr. Innella indicated that they do not meet the rear yard setback, however, the adjoining property is owned by the State of New Jersey and is all wooded.  Mr. Colasurdo agreed.  Mr. O’Krepky stated that he feels the township should require a certification by a structural engineer certifying the remaining structures useful life and the wind capacity.  Mr. Colasurdo indicated that he will submit a certification from their engineer that this tower has a structural capacity to support the existing antennas and meet the basic requirements of the building code.  Mr. Haggerty indicated that this can be a condition of approval to insure that the building inspector requires this certification before a building permit is issued. 

Appearing before the board was the applicant’s Radio Frequency Engineer, Chad Jacobsen.  Mr. Jacobsen submitted to the board Exhibit “A-2” which is a Propagation Map with several overlays.  Mr. Jacobsen indicated that the Propagation Map is basically a topographical map of the subject site and the surrounding area.  The map also shows other Verizon sites in the surrounding areas, which are the Wantage Site, the Colesville Site, and the Port Jervis Site. Mr. Jacobsen indicated that the first overlay shows an area in green that shows reliable in vehicle coverage of the existing towers.  He indicated that the area they are seeking to cover is on Route 23, approximately ½ mile North of 519 and there is approximately a 2.8 mile gap in coverage on Route 23.  There is also the entire section of Sawmill Road and the entire section of Ridge Road included in that gap.  These areas are the major areas needed for service and the reason they are before the board this evening.  Mr. Jacobsen reviewed with the board the second overlay that shows the proposed coverage of the subject site shaded in green.  He indicated that the ordinance requires that a tower be located in a Highway Commercial Zone, however, there were no existing towers located in this zone to meet the required coverage of this area.  Mr. Zitone questioned as to why this tower will not cover the entire Route 23 area.  Mr. Jacobson indicated that because of the terrain they can not obtain coverage for the entire area of Route 23 from this site.

Appearing before the board was the applicant’s Planner, William Masters.  Mr. Masters presented to the board Exhibit “A-3” which is a photo board with 8 photographs.  Mr. Masters indicated that the applicant is requesting a Use Variance due to the fact that Wireless Telecommunication Facilities are not a permitted use in the CD Zone. However, they have an existing non-conforming structure and an existing non-conforming use.  The applicant is proposing to append the antennas to the existing non-conforming tower.  He indicated that the applicant’s burden and statutory requirements for granting the Use Variance relief  is to satisfy both the positive and negative criteria.  With respect to the positive criteria, it is the applicant’s burden to show that the site is a site that is particularly suited for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility.  He submitted to the board that this site is particularly suited for several reasons:  1)  It meets the technical requirement based upon the testimony presented by Mr. Jacobsen; 2)  The site is ideally situated to satisfy the coverage objective; 3)  The site is situate to major traffic corridors; 4)  There is an existing tall structure, it provides an ideal support structure for a wireless communication facility; 5) This application proposes co-location; 6)  They also have a willing landlord.  Mr. Masters referred to the negative criteria.  The board is dealing with an unmanned and unoccupied use.  The visual impact is of the most concern, which Mr. Masters referred to Exhibit “A-3”.  The 4 photographs on the left of the exhibit were taken of the site by Mr. Masters earlier this year.  The 4 photographs on the right of the exhibit are computer enhanced simulated renderings of the proposed antennas on the existing tower.  The first set of photographs were taken from the entrance of the site; the second set of photographs were taken from Route 23; the third set of photographs were taken from Sawmill Road; and the fourth set of photographs were taken from Route 23 at High Point State Park headquarters.  He indicated that it is evident from the photographs that the co-location of the Verizon antennas on this existing tower has an insignificant overall visual impact. 

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

A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Ms. Crawford to approve the Use Variance Request and the Preliminary and Final Site Plan with the condition that the applicant’s engineer submit a certification of the structure for review by the board engineer.  Roll Call: Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes.  The Motion was carried.

Rasht, Inc. – LUB 08-04 – Block 4, Lot 5.01 – Amended & Final Site Plan & Variance:

A letter was received from the applicant’s attorney requesting that this matter be carried to the September 11, 2008 Land Use Board meeting without further notice.  A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to carry this application to the September 11, 2008 Land Use Board meeting without further notice.  All were in favor.  The Motion was carried.

Storage Container Ordinance:

A lengthy discussion was held with regard to this issue relating to: 1) The length of time allowed; 2) Appearance; and 3) Location. It was agreed to set up a sub committee to review this ordinance.  Mr. Zitone appointed Mrs. Tufaro, Mr. Teufert and Mr. Ponce to the subcommittee.

Cell Tower Ordinance:

A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to recommend to the governing body that the maximum tower height of a cell tower be 120’.  Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, no; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes.  All were in favor.  The Motion was carried.

The vouchers were reviewed.  A Motion was made Mr. Ponce and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to approve the following vouchers:

1. Dolan & Dolan regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $429.96; and
2. Dolan & Dolan regarding Biccum (Escrow) in the amount of $354.90; and
3. Dolan & Dolan regarding Cellco Partnership (Escrow) in the amount of $382.20; and
4. Dolan & Dolan regarding Zitone Construction (Escrow – LUB 07-03) in the amount of $61.43; and
5. Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (May & June) in the amount of $645.43; and
6. Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (July) in the amount of $398.78; and
7. Dolan & Dolan regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $136.50; and
8. Dolan & Dolan regarding Cellco Partnership (Escrow) in the amount of $143.33; and
9. Dolan & Dolan regarding Zitone Construction (Escrow – LUB 07-03) in the amount of $54.60; and
10. Dolan & Dolan regarding Rosenfeld (Escrow) in the amount of $150.15

Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Ms. Crawford, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, abstain.  The Motion was carried.

CORRESPONDENCE

The correspondence was reviewed.  There was no formal action taken.

This meeting was opened to the public.  There being no public participation, this meeting was closed to the public.

Having no further business, a Motion was made by Ms. Crawford and seconded by Mr. Innella to adjourn the meeting.  All were in favor.  The meeting was adjourned.

Minutes prepared by:
SHARON M. YAROSZ
Land Use Administrator