MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF
Chairman Mike Lightner read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement Notice: Adequate notice of this meeting was given to the Citizen and the Daily Record, was posted with the Borough Clerk and on the Bulletin Board, and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
Members beginning new terms at this meeting signed the Oath of Office.
ROLL CALL:
Board Members Present:
Nix, Palmer, Pitcher, Dunn, Batty, Webb, Shaw, Gormally (arr.
Lightner Absent: Melikian, Selver
Also Present: Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer William Ryden
REORGANIZATION:
Election of Chairman: Mike Lightner was nominated by Frank Dunn, seconded by Sandy Batty. Election of Vice-Chairman: Barbara Palmer was nominated by Sandy Batty, seconded by Frank Dunn. The Chair and Vice-Chair were approved by unanimous roll call vote.
Appointment of Board Attorney: Sandy Batty recommended Peter Henry of Dillon, Bitar & Luther, seconded by Frank Dunn. Appointment of Board Engineer: Sandy Batty recommended William Ryden of Anderson and Denzler, seconded by Frank Dunn.
Appointment of Planning Consultant (as needed): Mike Lightner recommended Duggan Kimball seconded by Rob Pitcher. Appointment of Secretary and Administrative Officer: Mike Lightner recommended Marge Jackson, seconded by Steve Shaw. The previous four appointments were approved by 9-0 roll call vote.
Designation of Newspapers: The Citizen was designated as the paper of record and The Daily Record as the second paper of notice for 2006.
Designation of
Meeting Dates: 2006 meeting dates
were approved with a start time of
February 23 June 22 October 26
March 23 July 27 November 30
April 27 August 24 December 14
May
25 September 28
Barbara Palmer pointed out that the 2/23 meeting fell within a school vacation week. She and Frank Dunn indicated they could not attend that meeting.
REVIEW OF MINUTES: The
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTION:
TINA ANDREJEWSKI – FRAGOMENI Appl. #05-220
Frank Dunn pointed out that no comments from the public is incorrect; remove the word ‘no’ from the third paragraph and add to after ‘with respect’ on line 3. The motion for approval with corrections was made by Steve Shaw, seconded by Rob Pitcher and carried by 7-0 roll call vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Bl. 88, Lots 17.01, 18, 19, 20 Appl. #06-220
Major Site Plan R-AH
Attorney Roy Kurnos represented the applicant. Kurnos noted that the proposed name ‘Jubilee’ was not received with
enthusiasm. They are in the process of
changing that name. The Fusee property
was originally owned by Scott Dignes.
Soon after it was acquired, the property was designated as RAH zone
(Residential – Affordable Housing). At
that time the ordinance allowed 34 units, 6 of which would qualify for
Mike Lightner asked if Kurnos had any plan as to how long these proceedings would take. Kurnos said that was dependent upon the Board’s requirements. Kurnos reviewed his list of experts and estimated how long each of these presentations would take.
Peter Henry noted several items on Bill Ryden’s checklist that
have not been completed. Does the Board
Bill Ryden referred to paragraph F in his report dated January 18: #10 - we know what they are but, as the maps are revised, they should be provided; similarly for the structures within 200 feet. Referring to #23, utilities listed need to be shown. These probably do not need to be discussed tonight and should not be waived but should be provided. The Board deemed the application complete, subject to the aforementioned items being provided. Gary Webb suggested that we don’t need an entire, complete set of plans revised but we want to see the missing items. The Board agreed. Regarding other missing items, the Board understood that Engineer Ryden could determine which items need to be provided. It was understood that an entire revised set should be provided prior to preliminary or final approval.
David J. Minnow, architect and planner in
Exhibit A1, prepared by Dykstra Walker, was a colored
rendition of the site plan dated
Exhibit A3 showed the front, rear and end elevations of the
townhome buildings. Minnow said they
looked carefully at the architecture in
Exhibit A4, Townhouse End Unit C; Minnow described the floor plans.
Exhibit A5, interior unit B has less exterior glass.
Exhibit A6, elevations of multi-family buildings describing the main pedestrian entry and garage entry with elevator access to the lobby. There will be four condos on each floor in the same style with stone base, stucco, beams and extended eaves with brackets.
Exhibit A7, multi family building plans, highlighting parking level with storage and mechanical spaces. The first and second floor plans showed the lobby and four units.
Exhibit A8, multifamily units A & B, 2 bedroom units with approximately 1989 square feet.
Exhibit A9, 8 units of affordable housing, stone and stucco have same architectural style as the other buildings.
Exhibit A10, affordable housing building plan, providing accommodations for 1 (2 units), 2 and 3 bedroom units on each floor. There are no garages provided for these units.
Exhibit A11, garbage/recycling unit.
Exhibit A12, building sections of the multi-family and
townhouse buildings.
Board questions: Barbara Palmer asked which of the affordable units would be age restricted. Kurnos said that COAH would determine that restriction.
Frank Dunn asked about parking in the affordable housing
units. There are 17 spaces provided for
the eight units.
The townhomes would be included in the town disposal/pickup program. The other three buldings would be serviced by a private hauler. Each building would have a trash room; a building maintenance employee would organize the trash and recyclables.
Steve Shaw asked if the townhomes would be a condominium form of ownership. Yes, there could be a master association for the entire community with possible structure associations for each building type.
Joan Nix asked if one of the three multi-family units could
be set back; she felt that the group
created too strong a line along
Bill Ryden asked about the building numbering scheme. Would there be a design for mailbox clustering? Sandy Batty said that the post office may have restrictions regarding this.
Bill Ryden asked about noise standards regarding ventilation fans.
Referring to item #6, lighting plan,
From the audience: Mat Muhammed asked how long the building process would take. Minnow replied it would be 1 to 1 ½ years from approval.
Landscape architects, Sheldon DuBrow and Regina Cassorla were accepted by the Board as certified experts in landscape architecture. DuBrow said they treat each site as a unique combination of the landscape and architecture, so that when completed, it will appear that it has always been there. The buffering of the site will include varieties of evergreens, shade trees, flowering trees and flowering shrubs to provide screening from the beginning of the project. They would like the opportunity to meet with the STC to discuss the varieties.
Our lighting plan will create a soft effect (referred to sheet 4). Board members said they did not receive that sheet. A13, landscaping and lighting plan, described the fixture as being unique, different than a light on top of a pole. Gary Webb asked if they were site lighting or street lighting, i.e. would they be the responsibility of JCP&L or the association. Response - they are site lighting. There were 33 100-watt fixtures planned.
Cassorla noted a cluster of 8 to 12 existing trees to be
saved along
She described the fence along Fanny and Morris as a safety
factor to prevent people from crossing the street. Frank Dunn noted that fences have not been
approved in
Sandy Batty asked about the grading lines shown on the
plans. Cassorla said that it was the
same as the existing grading. Batty also
asked if there were plans for access to the parkland. Cassorla said she was not aware of that
requirement but could address it. Sandy
Batty voiced agreement with their plans to speak to the Shade Tree
Commission. Barbara Palmer expressed
concern about invasive plants, such as winged euonymous. Sandy Batty said they preferred native and
deer-resistent plants. Rob Pitcher
pointed out that
Marc Walker was accepted as an engineering expert. As the site engineer on this project, he described
existing conditions: this site was the
home of Fusee for many years and was contaminated with arsenic. Previous DEP permits allowed the soil to be
pushed into the wetlands; those permits lapsed so another remedial plan was
submitted and approved. The soil removal
permit was adopted in August, 2005 by this Board.
There will be perforated pipes underground to collect roof
water. The stormwater basin is designed
to meet new DEP regulations. They will
be submitting permits to DEP for stormwater design approval. Exhibit A2 shows the wetland areas and identifies
permits submitted to the DEP. General
permit 10A allows the entrance to cross the wetlands.
Most of the utilities will come from
A retaining wall is planned to support the entry from
Marc Walker cannot attend the Feb. 23 meeting. They will decide if they will testify that
evening or carry it to March 23. Barbara
Palmer asked if they could schedule a site walk.
Carried to February 23:
ROBERT KLINGENBURG Appl. #05-217
The meeting was
adjourned at
.
Respectfully submitted,
Marge Jackson, Secretary