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, Glen Plotsky, George Zitone, Michael O'Krepky, the board engineer, William Haggerty, Esq., the board attorney, Fred Suljic, the board Planner, and Sharon M. Yarosz, the board secretary.Those absent were: None.

FLAG SALUTE

MINUTES

The Minutes of May 8, 2008 Land Use Board meeting were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to approve the Minutes of the May 8, 2008 Land Use Board Meeting. 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, abstain; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

EXTENSIONS

Frances Biccum - LUB 06-22 - Block 5, Lot 50 - Steenykill Road - Variance:

Mr. Zitone and the board secretary, Sharon M. Yarosz stepped down from this application. Mr. Barbagallo took over as Board Chairman.

Mr. Haggerty indicated that he received some correspondence regarding this application. However, he feels that there is no action at this time the board should take. He indicated that the applicant in her correspondence requested a stay of enforcement action. Mrs. Tufaro indicated that the applicant has applied for construction permits. She further indicated that she is asking for relief on the fence height denial. Mr. Haggerty indicated that if the applicant wants relief from the fence height, then she needs to make application to the board, otherwise, she is in violation. No action was taken since the applicant did not attend the meeting.

Mr. Zitone and Mrs. Yarosz returned to the meeting. Mr. Zitone took over as Chairman.

APPLICATIONS CARRIED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING

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

Appearing on behalf of the applicant was Louis D'Arminio, their attorney, and Calisto Bertin, the applicant's engineer, who was previously sworn at the last meeting.

Appearing before the board was Mr. Bertin to discuss the changes made the site plan map (last revised May 19, 2008) as requested at the last board meeting. Mr. Bertin submitted to the board Exhibit ΑA-12" a Land Scape Rendering of the Site Plan. He indicated that there have been some notes added to the plan: 1 ) Fuel deliveries would happen between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. and 2) There will be no tractor trailer truck deliveries to the store.

Mr. Bertin indicated that at the last meeting there were some comments about the setback of the building to the right-of-way line and the island between the two driveways. He suggested at the last meeting to move the canopy back 5'. However, they were able to move the canopy back 8'. Therefore, the front yard setback variance request is now 17'. In doing this, they put a landscape island between the two driveways and widened the island 5'.

Mr. Bertin indicated that at the last meeting there was some discussion about the orientation of the trash. They had the trash facing the street so that the truck would have to maneuver in front of the store. It was recommended that they rotate this area and put the trash so that it actually faces the entrance driveway, therefore, a front loading garbage truck could come and pick up directly. In order to accommodate those changes, he had to move the retaining wall back.

Mr. Bertin indicated that at the last meeting the board's Planner, Mr. Suljic, suggested moving the store back towards the northeasterly property line. Therefore, having the required 25' setback, this would make the rear yard setback at 20' which would require a variance. By moving the store back, there is really no impact on anyone in this area because it is a wooded area. This was done to create more maneuvering room for vehicles from the canopy and the convenience store.

Mr. Bertin indicated that they did move the fuel tanks. The benefit of moving the fuel tanks would be that the delivery truck would now be parked along the retaining wall farthest from the street. When the truck is delivering fuel, it will block the inside island, the center and the street side islands will still be open.

Mr. Bertin submitted to the board Exhibit ΑA-13" which is a Fuel Truck and Car Circulation Plan. This plan shows the route through the site with a car and a delivery truck. The delivery trucks were re-routed on this revised plan so that it will come from the north making a left turn into the site, pulling along the retaining wall towards the easterly side of the site, but always staying outside the canopy.

Mr. Bertin indicated that he also added to the plan signs that state ΑNo Truck Fueling≅ at the entrance driveway.

Mr. D'Arminio questioned Mr. Bertin as to how many fueling stations can be used while the delivery truck is filling the tanks. Mr. Bertin indicated that there are 5 dispensers, which would give you 10 fueling positions on the site. When the truck is filling the tanks, 2 fueling positions will not be able to be used.

Mr. D'Arminio referred to Exhibit ΑA-12". He questioned Mr. Bertin in terms of overall circulation around the site, what is the distance between the parking spaces at the convenience store and the fueling dispensers. Mr. Bertin indicated it still remains at 34'. He stated that there is more room on this design from the canopy to the rear of the property and the canopy and the front yard setback.

Mr. Bertin indicated that the revised plan changes some of the variance requests. The building still maintains the 60' setback (which is the required setback), but the canopy variance has gone from a 9' setback to a 17' setback. The setback required to the rear property line is 25' feet. They have changed the building, as suggested by the board Planner, to a 20' rear yard setback, therefore creating a variance.

Mr. Bertin referred to the entrance driveway. They have widened it to 34' at the suggestion of Ms. Dolan, the Traffic expert to get a better circulation turning radius. The ordinance requires 24'. However, the DOT access code limits the curb cut to 50', which they will comply with.

Mr. Bertin indicated that there is a note on the plan that the design of the retaining wall will be submitted at another time certified by an engineer.

Mr. Bertin indicated that the fence is supposed to be 3' from the property line. The applicant needs a fence along the back of the retaining wall, which is 12' high. They prefer to have shrubs on top of the retaining wall rather than have the fence directly on top of the wall. Therefore, the fence has also been moved back on the revised plan. He indicated at the last meeting, there was a concern about the fence on top of the retaining wall making it 15' high. Therefore the applicant will need a wavier from this requirement. They are doing this for aesthetic reasons and feel a waiver is justified. He indicated that in the area of the retaining wall and fence, is just woods and a field behind it.

Mr. Innella questioned Mr. Bertin as to how high the fence is. Mr. Bertin indicated it is a 6' high vinyl coated chain link fence. He further stated that the applicant could make the fence 4' if the board feels it is necessary. Mr. Dunn questioned as to how far the fence is off the property line. Mr. Bertin indicated that the fence will be approximately 2' off the property line, which the ordinance requires 3' off the property.

Mr. Innella suggested to the applicant that more trees be planted behind the building in order to have a buffer between the back of the building and the bank. The applicant agreed.

Mr. Innella indicated that he was pleased with the improved circulation of the site since the last submission. He was also pleased with the notation of Αno trucks for fueling≅ on this site.

Mr. Suljic indicated in his last report to the applicant, he requested that the applicant submit proof that no additional land could be acquired from the adjoining property owner to make their case for a ΑC≅ Variance for the minimum lot size. At the present time they are at about 30% of what is required of the minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the applicant's did provide testimony that they had the bank next door and there was a topography issue behind the retaining wall. They also testified that if they acquired property behind the retaining wall, it would not be useable property because the embankment is so steep it would not add to the functioning of the lot. Mr. Suljic indicated that if they had another 20 or 50 feet they could step the wall and they could expand the site from 10,752 square feet to approximately 12,000 square feet. He would like to see a letter from the adjoining property owners indicating that they will not sell additional land to the applicant. Mr. D'Arminio indicated that they will write a letter to the surrounding property owners with this request and submit a revised plan if they are willing to sell a portion of their property.

Mr. Innella questioned if the applicant has obtained the NJ DOT access permits. Mr. Bertin indicated that they received a comment letter from the NJ DOT asking for some minor details and they have sent their response back on May 28, 2008 to NJDOT.

Mr. Dunn made a recommendation to the applicant to make the height of the plants in front of the fence to 36" to 42". Mr. Bertin agreed.

Mr. O'Krepky indicated that the applicant's have satisfied the issues he raised in his previous review letter. He did comment on the traffic report submitted in his last review letter which stated that the board is perfectly within their right to change and make modifications to the traffic pattern on the property and they are within their right to make suggestions to the DOT. However, it is ultimately the DOT's decision to accept or reject the board's suggestions.

This matter was opened to the public.

Appearing before the board was Reginald Cole. He was concerned that this applicant did not complete the conditions of the site plan application at their existing gas station across the street and he was concerned about the promises made by this applicant this evening. Mr. D'Arminio indicated that he feels that the conditions of that application were completed.

Appearing before the board was Ursula Leo of Laddey, Clark & Ryan on behalf of the objector, Petrozino, LLC. Ms. Leo indicated that the applicant testified that there are issues with topography with this property. She questioned Mr. Bertin if they were able to move back the retaining wall from the original plan submitted to the board. Mr. Bertin indicated that they did, however, it caused the wall to be higher. She questioned if they acquired the property to the rear, would they be able to move the retaining wall even further back. Mr. Bertin indicated that they could, however, the wall would be very tall. She questioned Mr. Bertin if the delivery allowed between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. was gas and convenience store deliveries. Mr. Bertin indicated that it would just be the fuel delivery truck. She questioned Mr. Bertin if they still are proposing diesel pumps. Mr. Bertin indicated that they are be. She questioned if they are not allowing tractor trailers to fuel at this location, why would they have diesel pumps. Mr. Bertin indicated that there are other vehicles that take diesel fuel. She indicated that Mr. Bertin testified that there are 3 other gas stations for fueling tractor trailers in this area. She questioned Mr. Bertin as to why the these 3 gas stations are able to service the tractor trailers. Mr. Bertin indicated because they are much bigger sites with more maneuvering room. She questioned if he agrees that this proposed gas station is significantly smaller than the existing gas stations in the area. Mr. Bertin agreed to the 3 stations that are able to service the tractor trailers. He further stated that there is another station that is a little bit bigger than this proposal, but not much. She indicated that Mr. Bertin testified that they moved the convenience store back pursuant to the board planner's suggestion, it now meets the front yard as well as the rear yard setback. Mr. Bertin indicated that it meets the front yard setback, but needs a variance for the rear yard setback. She questioned Mr. Bertin if the canopy requires a rear yard variance. Mr. Bertin indicated that it does not require a rear yard variance. She questioned Mr. Bertin since they have moved the diesel fueling station to the rear by the retaining wall, will it block the inside islands when the deliveries are made. Mr. Bertin agreed. She questioned as to how many fuel deliveries are they expecting in a week. Mr. Bertin indicated approximately 2 to 3 deliveries a week which is typical. Ms. Leo referred to exhibit ΑA-13" and questioned if a tractor trailer was existing left from this site would a car be able to make a right hand turn existing the site. Mr. Bertin indicated that the car would not be able to exit because the tractor trailer would occupy the whole exit driveway.

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

Ms. Leo presented to the board her client, Fred Ebrahimi. Mr. Ebrahimi was sworn in by the board attorney. Mr. Ebrahimi indicated that he is the owner of the Luk Oil which is in close proximately to the applicant's property and a competitor of the applicant. He stated that he is a manager and owner of approximately 20 gas stations. He has been involved in the gas station industry since 1979. He indicated that he has 12 pumps at the Luk Oil in Montague Township on Route 23 and receives approximately 3 to 4 deliveries a day which one of those are loads for diesel. Mr. Zitone questioned as to what time of day do they deliver. Mr. Ebrahimi indicated that they deliver any time of the day because you have to get delivery when you need it. He indicated that his property is approximately 3 2 acres. Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Ebrahimi if he had any concerns or objections to this application. Mr. Ebrahimi indicated that he was concerned with the safety and the traffic with this application. He feels that it is impossible for this proposed gas station to run on 2 or 3 loads per week. He is also concerned with a tractor trailer delivering gas coming from the north making a left hand turn into this property which could be packed with cars.

Ms. Leo submitted to the board Exhibits ΑO-1" through ΑO-7" which are photographs of other sites showing delivery of fuel and traffic being backed up onto the highway. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that he took these photographs in Bergen County. Mr. D'Arminio objected to these exhibits because they were totally irrelevant to this application.

Mr. D'Arminio questioned Mr. Ebrahimi if he has any restrictions on deliveries for his suppliers. Mr. Ebrahimi indicated that he does not. He questioned Mr. Ebrahimi if he has a restriction on his property for Αno left turn out≅. Mr. Ebrahimi indicated that he does not have a restriction. Mr. D'Arminio stated that no gas station in this area has a restriction for no left turn out. Mr. Ebrahimi agreed. Mr. D'Arminio questioned Mr. Ebrahimi if he did a comparison with regard to the capacity of his tanks compared to the capacity of the tanks at the locations shown in his exhibits. Mr. Ebrahimi indicated that he did not.

Mr. Ebrahimi indicated that he feels it is impossible to just get deliveries of gas in the evening because there is no way to determine when you will run out of gas. He also feels that there is no trucking company that will do this. He further indicated that the Gulf station which is the smallest station in this area receives 9 deliveries a week. He further stated that the Citgo receives 35 or more per week. A lengthy discussion was held with regard to the amount or deliveries and the time of deliveries.

A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mrs. Tufaro to approve the lot area variance request subject to the applicant approaching the owner of Lot 5.03 in order to purchase some additional property to increase the applicant's lot size. The board will give the applicant 20 days to contact the surrounding owner and 20 days for a response to this request, applicant to provide a copy of this letter to the board.. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, no; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, no; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, no. The Motion was carried.

A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mrs. Tufaro to approve the variance request for minimum lot depth. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, no; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, no. The Motion was carried.

A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to approve the 17' front yard setback variance for the canopy requested by the applicant. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, no; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, no; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, no; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, no. The Motion was denied.

A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mr. Dunn to approve the sign area variance requested by applicant. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mr. Teufert to approve the variance for rear yard setback of 20'. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, no; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mrs. Sndyer, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Teufert to approve the waiver request for the 2' setback for the fence. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

Mr. Haggerty indicated that the board could not approve the site plan application because the request for the canopy setback was not approved. The applicant will have to submit a re-design of the site.

A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Teufert to carry this application to the July 10, 2008 Land Use Board meeting without further notice. All were in favor. The Motion was carried.

NEW BUSINESS

Cell Tower Ordinance:

Mr. Innella expressed a concern regarding the height allowed in the township's cell tower ordinance. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the tower height allowed is 200' in the present ordinance.

A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mrs. Crawford to make a recommendation to the township committee to reduce the height allowed for a cell tower to 120'. 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;; Mr. Plotsky, no; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

VOUCHERS

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

1) Dolan & Dolan regarding Red Hill Road (Escrow) in the amount of $191.10; and

2) Dolan & Dolan regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $27.30; and

3) Dolan & Dolan regarding Cellco (Escrow) in the amount of $109.20; and

4) Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (April) in the amount of $290.80; and

5) Dolan & Dolan regarding Jupin (Escrow) in the amount of $109.20; and

6) Dolan & Dolan regarding Rosenfeld (Escrow) in the amount of $197.93; and

7) Dolan & Dolan regarding Jonsson (General) in the amount of $95.55; and

8) Dolan & Dolan regarding Crown Aggregates (Escrow) in the amount of $122.85; and

9) Dolan & Dolan regarding Biccum (Escrow) in the amount of $54.60; and

10) Dolan & Dolan regarding Jupin (Escrow) in the amount of $62.50; and

11) KSM Engineering regarding General Administration (May) in the amount of $250.00; and

12) KSM Engineering regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $437.50; and

13) Fred F. Suljic regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $320.00; and

14) Fred F. Suljic regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $240.00; and

15) Dolan & Dolan regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $689.50.

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; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, 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 being no public participation, the meeting was closed to the public.

ADJOURNMENT

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

Minutes prepared by:

SHARON M. YAROSZ
Land Use Administrator