MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD

OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

October 22, 2009

 

Chair Sandy Batty read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement Notice:  Adequate notice of this meeting was given to the Citizen and the Daily Record, 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:

Members Present: Nachshen, Shaw, Batty, Nix, Selver (7:35 arrival), Bailey, Zamierowski, Kane (9:55 departure), Holmberg, and Lewis

Absent: Gormally

Also Present: Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer Bill Ryden

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES:  Stephen Shaw made a motion to adopt the minutes of the August 27th, 2009 meeting with corrections. Peter Holmberg seconded the motion; the minutes were approved by voice vote.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

GIM Mountain Lakes Investors LLC                            49 Bloomfield Avenue

BK. 118.04 Lot 2                                                        Appl. 09-238

Minor Subdivision                                                         OL-2

The applicant, GIM Mountain Lakes Investors, did not include the Morris County Planning Board when noticing for the hearing. The application was carried to the November 19, 2009 meeting. The applicant will notice the County Planning Board of the new hearing date. 

 

GIM Mountain Lakes Investors LLC                            49 Bloomfield Avenue

BK. 118.04 Lot 1 & 2                                                 Appl. 09-239

Minor Site Plan                                                 OL-2

Sandy Batty, Chair of the Planning Board, recused herself. She is a resident of Pine Edge which is within 200 feet of the applicant’s property and is a member of the Townhouse Association. Bill Ryden, the engineer for the Borough, provided the Planning Board with a letter stating all the waivers requested by the applicant should be allowed. Stephen Shaw made a motion to accept the waivers requested in the application; a second was provided by John Zamierowski.  The motion was passed by a voice vote with all in favor.

Ross Chomik, of GIM Mountain Lakes Investors, was sworn in as the applicant.  Charles Applebaum, a licensed attorney in the state of NJ, represented the applicant.  Mr. Applebaum explained the new signs were part of the site plan application.  All exhibits (A-D) included in the application were prepared by Mr. Chomik.  Exhibit A showed the overall layout of the property and where the proposed sign (blue) for building 1 and the proposed sign (red) for building 2 were to be located on the site. Exhibit B showed the location of the existing entrance sign and the distance to the proposed sign for building 1. Exhibit C-1 and C-2 were renderings of the proposed sign for the 1st building and Exhibit D showed the proposed sign for building 2.  Mr. Applebaum reminded the board that the applicant was before the board in May concerning the entrance sign on the property. The May Resolution, item 10, requires them to come back to the board.

Ross Chomik used Exhibit E, labeled “Mountain Lakes 1 Subdivision Plan”, prepared by Omland Engineering, to show the property and the proposed sign locations. He clarified that “Mountain Lakes Corporate II” was the lot with the existing building.  He then explained the signage at the corporate center would be similar to other centers. There would be a large sign showing the campus entrance but once you enter the campus there would be signs identifying each building.  Each building sign would have the company logo and address on it.  The signs would be two sided with lighting and they would follow the town ordinances pertaining to lighting from dusk to 9 PM. The two signs would match.  Sign one would have their new tenant Pinnacle on it.  The second sign would show a tenant yet to be determined.

The sign already approved in May identifies the entrance to the entire site.  The original wooden sign will be addressed in the 1 year time limit set in the original resolution. Peter Holmberg asked if the applicant would be using consistent materials for all of the signs. He would prefer the signs be made out of stone like other signs in town.  The applicant confirmed they would be similar and made out of brick and stucco like the sign at the entrance.

Joan Nix, the Planning Board vice Chair, asked if there were any questions from the Public.  Lois Smith, residing at 19 Lockley Court, and President of the Pine Edge Association presented the associations concerns.  The community was worried about the lighting on the property since there will be removal of a lot of the vegetation during construction.  The applicant told the board he plans to landscape around the sign to reduce the amount of light affecting the homeowners.  They would be placing shielding on the lights. Thomas Manning, of 15 Lockley Court, thanked the board for its time and service.

Mrs. Nix asked if there were questions from the Board. – Paul Selver asked if the applicant could present a landscaping plan for the signs and information about the light shielding at the next meeting. Ross Chomik said he would meet with landscaper to come up with plan.  Stephen Shaw commended the applicant for renovating the building to obtain a LEED (Leadership Energy Environmental Design) certification. The renovation of the building has improved the area for the community. He felt Bill Ryden could approve the sign buffering proposed by the applicant.  Barry Lewis confirmed with the applicant that the signs identified each building and would look like the new sign already installed. He also felt the engineer could approve the planting on the north side of the sign.  Martin Kane agreed with Mr. Shaw and Mr. Lewis.  Joan Nix also wanted to see a landscape plan. 

Stephen Shaw made a motion to approve the two signs. The applicant would show the Borough Engineer how the light would be shielded; confirm the timing of lights and the landscape plan. Martin Kane provided the second. The application was approved by a vote of 7 to 2.   Voting for the application were members Shaw, Lewis, Holmberg, Nachshen, Bailey, Kane and Zamierowski.  Voting against were Nix and Selver.

 

ORDINANCE REVIEW

15-09 – 40-42. – Expiration of Variance – Sandy Batty stated that the last two sentences of the ordinance were changed to give the Zoning or Planning Board the ability to extend the time it would allow a variance to expire. Joan Nix would like to change the time for that extension to less than the additional 18 months proposed.  Peter Henry pointed out there would be a problem if there is a site plan or subdivision approval that includes variances.

245.15 P. (2) – Fences in Front Yard.   Joan Nix and Paul Selver felt we needed to clarify the reference to finished grade under item a [1]. Corey Nachshen suggested using the term pre-existing grade. Barry Lewis suggested we use the same language, pre-existing grade, for the stone pillars. Stephen Shaw suggested we write the ordinance in feet or inches not both to be consistent. Bill Ryden questioned stand alone piers.  It was determined that free standing piers could be no closer than 12 feet apart.

245.20 A. - Lake Front Exception. Peter Henry questioned the use of the words, adjacent property. He asked why the front yard and lakefront exceptions can’t be calculated the same way. The board felt the two exceptions should be calculated differently. Since they were very confusing concepts they asked Mr. Henry to rewrite this section for the Borough to provide some clarity.

Stephen Shaw suggested dividing the new ordinance in two. A new ordinance could be created for Variance Expiration and Fences. Lake Front and Front Yard Exceptions could be another ordinance. The Planning Board agreed that Ordinance 15-09 conformed to the Master Plan but board questioned the content and language of the ordinance.  Barry Lewis made a motion to approve the ordinance as being consistent to the Master Plan but needed to be rewritten for clarity. The second was provided by Stephen Shaw with members Batty, Nix, Shaw, Lewis, Holmberg, Nachshen, Selver, Bailey, and Kane voting in favor 9 to 0.

16-09 – Floor Area. – Corey Nachshen asked why attics were excluded in the new ordinance. Sandy Batty said you need to look at the definition of attics. She stated the only change made to the current ordinances was to include roofed breeze ways. Stephen Shaw asked where the exclusion of 500 square feet of roofed breezeways came from. The 500 square feet included the combined areas of roofed breezeways, porches and decks.  Joan Nix asked about chimneys. Currently they only count on one floor. Jim Bailey thought there was confusion concerning the inclusion or exclusion of decks.   

Joan Nix felt the ordinance needed to be rewritten to make it clearer. The board made a recommendation that this ordinance be rewritten for clarity. Stephen Shaw made a motion that a memo be sent to the Council stating the ordinance was consistent with Master Plan but needed to be rewritten. Paul Selver provided the second with members Batty, Nix, Shaw, Lewis, Holmberg, Selver, Bailey and Zamierowski voting in favor 8 to 0.

 

Stephen Shaw made a motion to adjourn the meeting; a second was provided by Peter Holmberg. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 PM

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted

 

 

                                                                                                Cynthia Shaw, Secretary