Open public meeting statement: The meeting was called to Order by the Chairman, Glenn Barbagallo, 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: Charles Teufert as Mayor Designee, Darren Ponce, Sharon Tufaro, Richard Innella, Jason Dunn, Glen Plotsky, Katherine Snyder, Jody Case Kennedy, James Guimes, Glenn Barbagallo, William Haggerty, Esq., the board attorney, Michael O’Krepky, the board engineer, and Sharon Yarosz, the board secretary. Those absent were: Gene Crawford (excused).

MINUTES
The April 9, 2009 Land Use Board Regular Meeting Minutes were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mr. Teufert to approve the Minutes of the April 9, 2009 Land Use Board Regular Meeting. All were in favor. The Motion was carried.

INFORMAL REVIEW

431 Route 206 LLC aka Rendezvous Restaurant and Deer Trail Motel
– Block 42, Lot 15 – 431 Route 206 – Informal Review:
Appearing before the board was the applicant’s engineer, Allan Campbell. He indicated that the previous Rendezvous Restaurant/Bar, the restaurant area had 50 seats and the bar area had 20 seats. This information was taken from the historic record. In addition to the Restaurant/Bar there is an 8 unit hotel facility in the rear of the property which has a care takers apartment on the top of the hotel. There is also an office building of approximately 1200 square feet. He indicated over the past year, his objection was to obtain the necessary DEP approvals in order to repair the septic and get the facility back on its feet. Since the facility is over 2000 gallons per day of discharge, it requires an NJPDES T-1 permit. They intend to have all permits issued within the next 30 to 40 days. The septic will be to the rear of the restaurant and down slope of the swimming pool. They will have a combination of tanks collecting septic effluent from the hotel which will discharge to the septic system. At the bottom facility they will have a serious of tanks, pump tanks, grease traps, and a state of the art design for the Restaurant and a pump station that will actually pump all the way back up to the hotel site and join this system and discharge into a septic disposal field.

Mr. Campbell indicated the reason he is before the board is they will have a series of five (5) septic tanks that will be placed behind the right rear corner of the Restaurant. Because of the placement of the tanks, there are several aspects that they are trying to achieve. The tanks have to be maintained at a certain elevation for a gravity feed out of the building, but at the same time they have a high water table at the lower portion of the property. Therefore the tanks will be built and constructed so that the tops are actually out of the surface of the ground and then they will be back filled. When they back fill, they will ballast the tanks with concrete in order to hold the tanks and prevent them from floating. They will have a concrete area over these tanks and what they would like to do is utilize that concrete pad and make it a more formal patio. They do not have any intension of outdoor dining at this time. By making it a patio and having it elevated it will help them to protect the tanks so that the gravel drive that circulates the back of the building will be elevated like a curb. It will also define a barrier between the existing loading zones, which they intend to upgrade the existing condition. Their desire for this patio is for it to be a smoking patio. His question to the board does this patio require site plan. If it does, they will not build the patio, they will just install the ballast over the tanks.

Mr. Barbagallo questioned as to the actual size of the concrete patio area he is proposing. Mr. Campbell indicated the concrete area over the tanks is approximately 25’ x 25’. If they make it a patio, they would expand it to add another 16’ to fill in the gap between the building and where the concrete tanks are. If they just have the 25’ x 25’ area just for the tanks, they can put top soil and seed and it will look like a grass mound, which he would prefer not to do.

Mr. Dunn questioned if there would be a change in the vehicle circulation as it used to be. Mr. Campbell indicated there would be no change in the circulation plan other than cleaning it up and fixing it.

Mr. Plotksy questioned if there will be a railing on the concrete pad. Mr. Campbell indicated that on the areas of the patio that would be greater than a step, they would have a fence type of rail because they would like to separate the loading area from the patio area, so that you will have a visual block as well as a barrier.

Mr. Innella questioned Mr. Campbell as to what load factor will the septic tanks be able to take. Mr. Campbell indicated that they will be the standard septic tanks that are not load bearing. Mr. Innella also questioned as to how they plan to have access to the tanks. Mr. Campbell indicated that the concrete pad will have 8 manhole covers which will be bolted covers.

Mr. Barbagallo questioned Mr. Campbell if they go with the patio option is it possible to have out door dining in the future in this area. Mr. Campbell indicated that he could not speak for the applicant, but if he does it will be at the expense of internal seats because they are limited to 40 seats in the bar and 50 seats in the restaurant based on the septic approval at the state. He will also need site plan to do this.

Mr. Haggerty indicated that the Montague Township Ordinance is typical and it talks about the review of site plan in case of an addition or alteration to an existing structure or parking facilities related to a structure, any change of use of structure. In this case, based on the information presented by Mr. Campbell, the parking, the lighting, the ingress and egress, and the drainage are not going to change. He feels the site plan review would only be needed if the patio would be used for dining purposes.
Mr. Innella indicated that he would like to see the concrete slab with the manhole covers rather than 5 tanks sticking up with manhole covers without a concrete slab.

The board felt that there is no need for site plan approval for the patio as long as the applicant does not use the area for dining purposes.

APPLICATIONS FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING

ADPP Enterprises Inc. – LUB 08-01 – Block 2, Lot 6 – Preliminary & Final Site Plan:
Appearing before the board was the applicant’s attorney, Louis D’Arminio, and their engineer, Calisto Bertin of Bertin Engineering. The applicant’s were previously before the board for a Preliminary & Final Site Plan application and approved at the September, 2008 Land Use Board meeting. The application was originally approved as a Shamrock gas station/convenience store on Route 23 North. Prior to construction, the facility was re-branded as a BP Gas station/convenience store. As a result they submitted new architectural plans. There is no change in the site plan and there is no change in the building footprint, however, the facade of the building changed pursuant to BP. It came to his attention that the township had a problem with the re-design of the architectural plans and they are before the board this evening to discuss the issue.

Mr. Haggerty indicated to Mr. Bertin that he was previously sworn in under this application and that he is still under oath. Mr. Bertin agreed. He indicated that the building that was built is the standard BP building. The material on the building is brick. After receiving a telephone call from the Zoning Officer on Thursday, they came up with some alternate ideas which were presented to the board.

Mr. Teufert indicated at the original hearing the architectural design presented was a rural/rustic design which would be a benefit to the community. He feels that the building that was built is just another lego building on the site. He feels he would have asked for a lot of different changes had this design come before the board originally.

Mr. Bertin presented to the board a design that was similar to the original plan. However, instead of having the straight walls on the sides, they have added a mansard roof similar to what the Luke Oil has across the street. Mr. Teufert indicated that in his opinion this does not satisfy him because the roof line is very different than what was approved.

Mr. Dunn questioned if the footprint of the building is the same as approved. Mr. Bertin indicated that the footprint and the interior is the same.

Mr. Dunn questioned Mr. Bertin as to what it would take to make the building look like what was approved. Mr. Bertin indicated that the roof would have to be replaced.

Mr. Bertin indicated that building material is all brick which is a buff/sandy color which was similar to what was approved. The original approval was for cultured stone and the hardy plank. From a material standpoint, it is a more expensive material with what they have built, although it is a different look.

Mr. Bertin suggested putting a peaked roof across the frontage and going all the way back. However, you would still have a flat roof around the sides. They would be able to cantilever the roof out and put in recessed glass.

A lengthy discussion was held with regard to this issue with several different suggestions for the design and the possibility of more landscaping. It was agreed to have the applicant’s engineer submit some sample ideas as to what can be done to make the building look similar to what was approved and submit it to the board to review at the next regular meeting. The board indicated that they would like to see the original roof line that was approved.

OLD BUSINESS

Accessory Buildings and Structures Ordinance and Buildings and Lots Ordinance:
At the last meeting the board asked to carry this ordinance because they could not decide on the location of an accessory structure on the lot. Mr. Barbagallo indicated that he feels that an accessory structure should be allowed parallel to the principal structure or behind it and nothing in the front yard area. There was an issue as to the cost for the applicant to come in for a variance for an accessory structure.

A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mr. Plotsky to approve the Accessory Buildings and Structures Ordinance with the revision that the accessory structure can not be in front of the principal structure and the front yard is the area from the front wall of the primary structure forward. Roll Call: Mr. Teufert, no; Mr. Ponce, no; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; Mrs. Snyder, no; Mrs. Kennedy, yes; and Mr. Barbagallo, yes. The Motion was carried.

Corner Lot Ordinance:
It was noted that the township committee has passed this Ordinance on first reading and returned it to the Land Use Board for final review. The board indicated that no changes were required. A Motion was made by Mr. Plotsky and seconded by Mrs. Snyder to approve the Corner Lot Ordinance, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and forward same to the Township Committee for adoption. Roll Call: Mr. Teufert, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mrs. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes. The Motion was carried.

Montague Township Land Use Board By-Laws:
The board reviewed the final draft of the Montague Township Land Use Board By-Laws with the correction of the meeting time from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mr. Dunn to approve the revised Montague Township Land Use Board By-Laws, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Roll Call: Mr. Teufert, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mrs. Kennedy, yes; and Mr. Barbagallo, yes. The Motion was carried.

NEW BUSINESS

Sign Ordinance:
Mrs. Tufaro suggested to the board that some revisions be made to the sign ordinance. She suggested the following changes: 1) Setback requirement of 10 feet from street line; 2) A definition as to what a “small” entrance and exit sign is; 3) Add a paragraph to state: All signs and sign structures of all types shall be set back or elevated sufficiently to allow a clear unobstructed line of site; 4) Under the Permit section of the ordinance change wherever it states “Building Inspector” to “Zoning Officer.”

It was asked by the board for Mr. O’Krepky to find out what a standard sign size would be for item 2 above. A lengthy discussion was held with regard to the setback requirement for signs. It was suggested that an addition be added to the ordinance for all temporary signs with one set setback requirement and height. Mr. Plotsky suggested adding it to the paragraph 3 above as suggested by Mrs. Tufaro.

It was agreed to have Mr. Haggerty prepare an ordinance for the next meeting for the board to review. .

Agriculture/R3 Zone Permitted Uses - Definitions:
Mrs. Tufaro indicated in the definition of the R3 Zone (3 acre zoning) it indicates that you must have 5 acres for agricultural use. It was indicated that the state has guidelines for animals and the acreage requirement for each type of animal. Mrs. Snyder indicated that in order to have farmland assessment you need to have 5 acres, she feels that is where the 5 acres was established, with the exception of 4H projects. It was agreed to obtain some sample ordinances and to carry this matter to the next regular meeting of the Land Use Board.

VOUCHERS
The vouchers were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mrs. Snyder and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the following vouchers:

1. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $312.50; and
2. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $62.50; and
3. KSM Engineering, P.C. regarding Anthony (Escrow) in the amount of $375.00; and
4. Harold E. Pellow & Associates, Inc. regarding COAH in the amount of $1,988.25; and
5. Harold E. Pellow & Associates, Inc. regarding Plan Endorsement in the amount of $1,823.34; and
6. Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (Packett) in the amount of $54.50; and
7. Dolan & Dolan regarding Cellco LUB 09-01 (Escrow) in the amount of $156.98; and
8. Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (March) in the amount of $295.00; and
9. Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (April) in the amount of $335.95; and
10. Dolan & Dolan regarding Cellco LUB 09-01 (Escrow) in the amount of $75.08.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

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

ADJOURN:

Having no further business, a Motion was made by Mr. Plotsky 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