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 the Bulletin Board, and made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Board Members Present:
Nix (
Shaw (
Also Present: Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer William Ryden
REVIEW OF MINUTES: The minutes of the March 22 meeting were approved by voice vote.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
BILL & ELLEN GASCOIGNE Appl. #07-229
The motion to approve the resolution for the major soil moving permit was made by Louise Davis, seconded by Sandy Batty and carried by 4 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
All applicants and witnesses were sworn in by Attorney Peter Henry.
Amendment request:
Bl.
101,
Amendment to Resolution R-AH zone
Attorney Roy Kurnos introduced the applicant’s request to
amend the Major Site Plan Resolution of
Kurnos summarized that the Otteau Real Estate report had recommended removal of the age restriction on this development. Kurnos offered that he has copies of the traffic report. He reviewed that Doug Kennedy, of the North Fork Bank, testified that his bank would not consider financing this project with the age restriction.
William P. Weber, developer under contract for this project, testified that he has observed that all real estate traffic has diminished since August 2006. He observed that age restricted communities were having even more problems marketing their units. He referred to the Otto Report, noting the change in the market: down approximately 19%, whereas the age restricted market is down 44%. This report firmly recommended that the age restriction be removed. They recommend the COAH mix of one 1-bedroom, five 2-bedrooms and two 3-bedrooms for the affordable units.
Board questions & responses: How will the size of the affordable units change? – there is plenty of room, they will still average over 900 square feet.
Wasn’t the age restriction your idea? – it was requested by Council and we thought it would be marketable at that time. We don’t expect that there will be many children in these units because the townhome interiors are designed for empty-nesters, not families.
The next witness was Niels Guldbjerg, vice president of the Otteau Evaluation Group; he has been with the company 20 years, has been a real estate appraiser for 25 years and holds the highest level license for appraisers and consultants. He was accepted as an expert in marketing and real estate. Guldbjerg testified: the Otteau report is subscribed to by approximately 70,000 realtors in the state of NJ. His firm was retained in February to assess the feasibility of this project in this market. Their conclusion is that this would not be profitable in this market. There has been an increase in construction costs and a 10% reduction in sales price. This product will likely be priced at more than $1 million per unit and is designed for tenants whose children have left home. They looked at attached housing units that were, and were not, age restricted. The sales velocity in the open market units has declined 19.6%; in age restricted units the decline was 44.9%. They discovered that buyers of age restricted units are discretionary; they don’t have to buy immediately. That was one of the significant factors in recommending that the age restriction be removed. In a market where sales were rapid and communities were concerned about increasing school enrollment, there had been a large growth in age restricted units. At this point, they believe more units have been built than are currently in demand.
There is a project similar to this in
Gordon Meth prepared the traffic study in February
2006. He noted that the report was based
on age restricted units with the exception of four affordable units. Kurnos asked if the traffic numbers would
change. Meth – the traffic estimate could
change from 18 to 28 in the morning, 31 to 32 in the afternoon and from 15 to
22 on Saturday. The exhibit was marked
as A1. He estimated that the level of
service would not change by more than one second in the morning and most
traffic would leave from the
Kurnos asked if there would be additional need for parking if the age restriction were lifted. Meth – RSIS is not impacted by age restriction. 134 spaces are sufficient. There is a higher trip generation in the morning peak hour. People between 55 and 65 have more flexibility in their working times so there could be more trips in the morning with non age restricted units.
We don’t
Kurnos said that completes our proofs. All the site plan factors remain the same.
There was no public comment. Board comments: Steve Shaw expressed appreciation to the Planning Board members who came to the Monday presentation to Council. He reviewed the process that began in 2003. The corner has been cleaned and approved by DEP. He stressed the importance of “work force” housing so that local teachers & police force could afford to be part of the community. He believes that the age restriction would provide too many residents who did not have a vested interest in the school system. There has already been a huge investment in time and dollars on this project. He believes they have prepared a very good product. The units are really age-targeted and will be self-selecting. He doesn’t believe that the age restriction concept was ever really an issue in the initial approval. He advocates lifting the age restriction.
Barbara Palmer agreed with most of Steve’s comments. However, if it is going to be “family housing”, we should take another look at the common areas and safe connections for walking to school. Sandy Batty said this opens the possibility of a lot more children. We should consider whether we need sidewalks, common areas, etc. Lightner noted that we don’t have any other areas in the town with special facilities for children. Spruce Edge has 120 units and provides only 20 children to the schools. Lightner said he believes that, if a family is buying a home for $1.2 million, they will buy a house with a yard, not a condo.
Selver – agrees with removing the age restriction but he
does believe that we ought to look at sidewalks for safety and / or a play
area. He thinks that we should take a
Peter Henry said it is appropriate to evaluate whether there should be modifications if the age restriction is lifted. Bill Ryden said he doesn’t believe there were any design deviations based on whether there would or would not be children. The plan satisfies the RSIS.
Kurnos asked for two waivers: road width (24’) and road speed (15 mph). There was testimony that people could walk on the roads because of the speed restricton and the roads are wide. Kurnos said they wouldn’t want to have skateboards and big wheels. Also, sidewalks would increase the impervious coverage.
Gary Webb – the playround built in the existing condos has
been removed because it was not safe and was not used. There are recreation amenities close by this
project. There will be a sidewalk on
Louise Davis moved to eliminate the age restriction with no additional requirements, seconded by Gary Webb. Attorney Henry said that Shaw was not eligible because he missed the first few minutes of testimony. The roll call vote was: Lightner, Webb, Davis, Melikian in favor; Batty, Palmer, Dunn, Selver opposed; a tie vote is a denial of the motion.
Paul Selver asked if we could accept removal of the age restriction subject to Planning Board review of changes to the site plan to give the Board an opportunity to explore options for safety. Kurnos asked for the matter to be adjourned to allow Shaw to listen to the tape and come back next month. Attorney Henry – that would be res judicata. Henry – the applicant could ask for the Board to reconsider.
Kurnos asked for a motion to lift the age restriction with the opportunity to come back with proposed amendments. Paul Selver moved that the age restriction be lifted subject to the Board’s satisfaction with safety and play issues. Barbara Palmer said she is not talking about play equipment but would like to see a common area.
Bill Weber clarified that the Board wants to be sure the
community is suitable for children. Is
it possible that we can provide
Henry said there does not need to be action tonight. Kurnos asked that the request be carried
without
Carried from March 22:
CHRISTINA & WAYNE KOCH Bl. 45 Lot 86
Major soil moving permit RA zone
Engineer Frank
Matarazzo accompanied Christina Koch.
Proposed construction of the pool will require grading and soil removal. Referring to items in Bill Ryden’s review letter
of Feb. 8, Koch testified that Gary Kulpeska, a local excavator, will provide
the fill from a source within the Borough; specifics can be identified when
they apply for permits. They intend to
landscape the entire yard. This is a
rough sketch; the area will include high
Gary Webb asked
about the retaining wall. Matarazzo - it
will be a dry boulder wall with gravel behind the stone so runoff doesn’t put
pressure on the wall. Some of the
boulders are on site, some will come from other properties in
From the public: Noel Malnati,
Chairman Lightner
reminded the Board that he would not begin a new application after
TONY DIMARCO Bl. 97, Lot 7
Major soil moving permit RA zone
Marc Walker, project engineer, prepared the plot plan. He said the project will comply with all bulk requirements. DiMarco testified that he is building a single family home on this lot.
There will be importation of 576 cubic yards, approximately
40 truckloads, which will come from his project on
Referring to Ryden’s report, they will agree to all
conditions: #6 – DiMarco said it would
take three trucks one day to move all the soil.
6B – the performance bond will be provided; 6C - times will not
interfere with school traffic (9 – 2:30); 6D – fill source from
Barbara Palmer asked if the buffers between the properties will be replanted; DiMarco said he always provides landscaping. Lightner asked if we can add the condition of a landscaping plan to the soil approval. Marco agreed to plant one white pine tree approximately every 12 feet along the rear of the property.
Louise Davis moved to approve the application with the conditions of compliance with Ryden’s report plus landscaping to stabilize the back yard, seconded by Steve Shaw and carried by 9-0 roll call vote.
DANIEL FERRANTE Bl. 99, Lots 1 & 6
2 Esplanade, 248 Morris Appl. #07-231
Major subdivision RA zone
Frank Dunn stepped
down because he lives within 200 feet of the applicant’s property. Attorney
Kurnos reviewed Ryden’s March 22 letter.
A limited EIS was provided by Marc Walker; this included surface water
management as requested by the Board at the March meeting. Since they are not at the building permit
level, a landscaping plan is premature.
The final plat has been submitted.
Ryden said that the
submissions satisfy completeness issues.
The Board confirmed completeness of the application by 9-0 roll call.
The hearing was
adjourned to 5/24.
DISCUSSION: Ordinance 05-07
Steve Shaw referred to the ordinance with changes recommended by COAH. The development fee will not have an exception for remodels or additions. The fee will be assessed based on the increase in value; that is, anything that would increase the assessment of the property. The administration fee can be assessed earlier in the process. The ordinance is scheduled for public hearing at the next Council meeting. This was referred to the Board to determine if it is in conformance with the Master Plan. Mike Lightner said he does not see this as a planning issue, it is a tax and revenue issue that is controlled by Council; it is not relevant to the Master Plan. Shaw said Council had the same concerns. The rate would be 1% on residential, 2% on commercial and 6% for each additional residential unit requiring a density variance.
Council will be informed that this is not inconsistent with the Master Plan. The motion was made by Mike Lightner, seconded by Armen Melikain and carried by 9-0 roll call vote.
REPORTS: Steve Shaw reported that the Highlands Committee
met and summarized with a memo. It is a
draft plan, so they decided that they
would like the subcommittee to prepare comments; we plan to suggest that our
parklands be in the parkland zone; it is not clear what the planned community
zone includes; our comment should reflect that all the planned community (purple)
zones should be treated exactly the same.
For example,
The meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Marge Jackson, Secretary