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 (arrived at 8:10), Katherine Snyder, Glen Plotsky, George Zitone, William Haggerty, Esq., the board attorney, Michael O’Krepky, the board engineer, and Sharon M. Yarosz, the board secretary. Those absent were: None.

MINUTES

The minutes of the August 14, 2008 Land Use Board meeting were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mr. Dunn to approve the Minutes of the August 14, 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; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, abstain; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The motion was carried.

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

The Resolution was reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the Resolution for a Height Variance for Clint and Gina Rosenfeld. Roll Call: Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

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

The Resolution was reviewed. Mr. Dunn was concerned that the Resolution does not include a Final As-Built to be submitted subject to review and approval of the board engineer. The board agreed that this should be added to the Resolution. A Motion was made by Mr. Ruberto and seconded by Mr. Dunn to approve the Resolution for a Preliminary & Final Site Plan and Variances with the added condition of a submission of a Final As-Built to be submitted to board engineer for review and approval. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Ms. Crawford, abstain; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

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

The Resolution was reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the Resolution for a Preliminary & Final Site Plan and Variance. 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 Preliminary Site Plan & Final Site Plan & Variance:

Appearing before the board was the applicant’s attorney, Ursula Leo of the firm Laddey, Clark & Ryan, and their engineer, Bahman Izadmehr of the firm Bertin Engineering Associates, Inc. Mr. Izadmehr was sworn in by the board attorney. Mr. Izadmehr gave his qualifications to the board and was accepted as an expert witness.

Mrs. Leo indicated that the applicant was before the board for a re-approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, Amended Preliminary Site Plan, and Final Site Plan, as well as Variance relief. The first variance is driveway width and the second variance is related to signs. The amendment to the site plan is to add an additional shed on the property.

Mrs. Leo indicated that this property is at 15 Route 23, it is an existing site and it is already an existing gas station/convenience store.

Mr. Haggerty indicated to the board that this project was developed and received a Certificate of Occupancy under the Preliminary Site Plan Approval before coming back to the board for Final Site Plan. Because of this, the Preliminary Approval expired and this is why the applicant is requesting a re-approval of the Preliminary Site Plan.

Mr. Izadmehr confirmed as Mr. Haggerty stated that the project has been built and they have been in operation for several years. He indicated to the board that there were a few changes to the Preliminary approval: 1) The driveway opening. The initial approval was for 30’ 7”, however, it was built at 31’ 6”. The townships maximum driveway width is 24’ and, therefore, the applicant is seeking a variance for this opening. The township engineer’s report dated September 6, 2008 states that this opening will improve the safety of the traffic on the site and on Route 23; 2) There were changes to the internal circulation for truck traffic; 3) The freestanding sign is located approximately 2.7’ closer to the right of way than what was approved due to surveying difficulties by the prior engineer. The board approved the sign to be 7’ from the property line and the sign was actually installed at 4.4’ from the right of way. Therefore, they are requesting a variance for this; and 4) They are requesting the addition to the convenience store inside the existing building to allow a Quiznos Deli. The convenience store is 3500 square feet which was approved by the board. Because of this change, they are requesting from the board an additional sign. Initially the board approved one sign to go on the convenience store building façade; now they are requesting 2 signs, one for the convenience store and one for Quiznos. He also indicated that the main sign for the convenience store, which was approved by the board, was never constructed. He further indicated that there was an approval for 4 signs on the canopies. The approval was not clear if it is for each canopy or 4 overall. There are actually 10 signs on the canopies. There are 2 signs that are lighted and 8 decals; 5) Addition of a shed in the rear of the property. His client received a zoning and building permit to erect a small shed in the rear of the property. This was not part of the prior approval. This is one of the changes to preliminary site plan; 6) The tank locations were built in different locations as indicated on the original approval. This was done for better circulation and grading purposes; 7) They are adding two slaves to the master in order to reduce the idling time for diesel fueling. They are not adding additional pumps, they are just adding a slave to the existing pumps. A slave is basically a pump head. The installation of the slaves are installed under all state regulations.

Mrs. Leo questioned Mr. Izadmehr as to the use of the shed being added to the property. He indicated that the shed is being utilized for storage of equipment for maintenance of the property. It is not related to the retail sales. Mr. Dunn questioned if anything hazardous, such as propane tanks will be stored in the shed. They will not be storing propane or anything hazardous in this shed. The size of the shed is 16’ x 8’.

Mr. Izadmehr indicated that the total square footage of the 2 signs that they are requesting for the building is 97.8 square feet. The original approval approved 67 square feet for the one sign. Mr. Barbagallo questioned as to the location inside the building of the Quiznos. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that they will be on the north side of the building. Approximately 900 square feet will be dedicated to the Quiznos section. There will be no partitioning of the convenience store for the Quiznos, however, they are requesting a separate entrance to this portion of the building. Mr. Izadmehr showed the board the location of the Quiznos on a colored rendering of the site plan dated 7/14/08, which was marked as Exhibit “A-1”. Exhibit “A-1” also has an overlay map which shows the original approval of the board.

Mr. Barbagallo questioned if the propane filling station was moved to a different location as originally approved. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that it was moved. It was originally approved in the right rear corner of the lot and it has been re-located to the south side of the property where the original tanks were supposed to go. This was done to improve the truck traffic. Mr. Barbagallo questioned if they fill the propane tanks while you wait. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that the tanks can be filled while you wait.

Mr. Dunn questioned as to who approved all these changes during construction. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that he was not involved at that time with the applicant and does not know who approved the changes. He stated that he would assume it would be the township building department or engineer. The board members were concerned with all the changes that were made to the original approval. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that the changes were made at his firm’s recommendations to make the changes because it was a better design and also because of the existing grade conditions, the tanks are in a better location. Mr. Dunn questioned Mr. Izadmehr that there was a DEP permit for this site and was concerned if the applicant complied with the DEP requirements. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that he was not involved at the time, however, he feels that the building was built to meet all other agencies required approvals.

Mr. O’Krepky questioned Mr. Izadmehr if he sent in the revised location of the sign to the NJ DOT. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that they do not control the location of the sign as long as they are outside of their right of way. There is an exception for buildings. Mr. O’Krepky disagrees that the NJ DOT pays very close attention to signs because of sight distance and site triangles. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that the “As-Built” survey was sent to the NJ DOT after construction was completed. He further testified as an engineer he can state that the new sign location does not adversely affect the site distance of the application to the NJ DOT.

Mr. Dunn questioned if there will be seating in the Quiznos portion of the building. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that there will be no seating, but there will be 2 counters facing the windows towards the parking lot.

Mr. Dunn questioned if the septic system is sized correctly. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that the septic is sized correctly because it was based on the same size building as was the parking, which has not changed. Mr. O’Krepky indicated that if food is prepared on the premises, there is a change in gallonage. He questioned Mr. Izadmehr if they have a letter from the Sussex County Health Department regarding the septic. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that they have not applied for this permit. Mr. O’Krepky indicated that this will not be a permit, it is just an updated review by the Health Department to make sure the septic is sufficient to add this service. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that it is his understanding that the food from Quiznos comes prepared, it just needs to be assembled at this location.

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

Mr. Ponce questioned as to where they are proposing the 2 signs. He referred the board to page C-3.2 of the site plan showing the location of the signs. The main sign for the convenience store will be to the left and the Quiznos sign will be to the right. Mr. Ponce questioned if there will be a sign on the freestanding sign by the road. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that at this time they do not intend to put a Quiznos sign on the freestanding sign at the entrance. Mrs. Leo indicated that the applicant may at a later date want to add the convenience store and Quiznos sign to the freestanding sign, however, they will stay within the area that was approved by the township on that particular sign, which was 224 square feet.

Mrs. Leo gave a summary of the application before the board this evening. They are seeking to obtain from the board this evening a re-approval of the Preliminary and they need to amend the preliminary with the changes as described by the applicant’s engineer, and they need Final Site Plan approval. They are requesting variances for the driveway for 31.6’ where 24’ is allowed by the township’s ordinance and there was testimony that this was to improve the circulation pattern; the sign setback was made at 4.4’ where 25’ is required by township ordinance and 7’ was originally approved; they are seeking 2 signs on the building and 1 is permitted; 4 signs were approved on the canopies at the previous hearing and they are requesting 10 signs on the canopies. They are also seeking to amend the site plan to include the tank locations, the slaves and the shed in the rear of the property as an addition. The applicant is willing to have a condition of approval that the shed is for maintenance storage of the property only and not for the storage of items from the retail convenience store on the property. Mr. Dunn indicated that they also widened the lane going around the building from 18’ to 25’. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that this was done for better circulation on the site. Mr. Zitone indicated that he remembers that this was a lengthy discussion at the preliminary site plan hearing. Mr. Plotsky indicated that he was concerned that these changes were done without board approval. Mr. Teufert questioned since they widened the access road around the building, which resulted in more pavement, where drainage calculations done for this change. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that he does not know because he was not involved with the site at that time, it would be slightly more impervious coverage. Mr. O’Krepky questioned Mr. Izadmehr if the increase in the impervious was less than ¼ acre of disturbance. Mr. Izadmehr indicated it definitely was. Mr. O’Krepky indicated that providing that the drainage system can accommodate the quantity treatment standards that the original application was approved to, then he has no additional comments to add. He feels that it is in conformance.

Mr. Innella indicated that on a positive note, he feels the site turned out to be a nicely designed site. He feels the wider driveway opening is better, the circulation is better and he does not have a problem with the tanks being in another location. However, he does not like the storage shed on the property.

Mr. Zitone questioned the board attorney if there will be a problem with the relocation of the freestanding sign. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the applicant should provide evidence of DOT approval of that relocation of the sign and widened driveway. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that the state did inspect the driveway and sign location and they did approve the site, therefore, there is no need for the condition. Mr. Haggerty indicated that this can be put in the Resolution as a condition to make sure it is supplied to the township for their records.

Mrs. Leo indicated that the reason for the shed is for storage of the maintenance equipment for the grounds and it is basically for neatness so that the equipment is not laying around the site. It is a standard prefab shed.

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

A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to re-approve the Preliminary Site Plan, approve the Amended Preliminary Site Plan and Final Site Plan and Variances as stated in testimony and the conditions as set forth in the testimony. 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.

COAH Update:

It was noted that Mr. Suljic, the board planner, could not make the meeting this evening. He did send an e-mail to the board secretary that he will be appearing before the Township Committee on September 23, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the issues of COAH and the Plan Endorsement process and he requests that the board members should attend.

Accessory Structure Ordinance:

The board reviewed the Accessory Structure Ordinance with regard to adding storage container usage. It was agreed to have the capacity of the container at 1300 cubic feet or less. It was also agreed to have the time limit for 60 days, not to exceed 1 year. It was agreed to correct the statement in the current ordinance that refers to the IBC 2006 Code and change it to the UCC code. It was also agreed to add a section to the Ordinance indicating that accessory structures can not be built before the principal structure. It was also agreed to correct a section of the ordinance which states that in the event of a partial or total destruction of a single family home, the applicant would have to obtain approval from the Township Committee for a temporary mobile home on the premises during reconstruction. It was agreed to change the Township Committee to the Zoning Officer. It was also recommended to take out the minimum lot size requirement from the accessory structure ordinance because this would fall under the bulk requirements and is not necessary in this ordinance. It was agreed to carry this matter to the next meeting and to have the attorney make the necessary changes to review at that time.

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

1. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Rosenfeld (Escrow) in the amount of $500.00; and
2. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $93.75; and
3. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Cellco Partnership (Escrow) in the amount of $225.00; and
4. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding General Administration (August) in the amount of $250.00; and
5. Charles Hecht & Associates, Inc. regarding Cellco (Escrow) in the amount of $1,268.75; and
6. Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (August) in the amount of $296.40; and
7. Dolan & Dolan regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $505.05; and
8. Dolan & Dolan regarding Cellco Partnership (Escrow) in the amount of $376.68; and
9. Dolan & Dolan regarding Rosenfeld (Escrow) in the amount of $225.23; and
10. Dolan & Dolan regarding Rasht (Escrow) in the amount of $191.10; and
11. Dolan & Dolan regarding Zitone (Escrow 07-03) in the amount of $34.13.

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. 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