MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD
OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES
November 19, 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 (7:50pm), Bailey, Kane, Gormally and Lewis
Absent: Zamierowski, Holmberg
Also Present: Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer Bill Ryden
REVIEW OF MINUTES: Stephen Shaw made a motion to adopt the minutes of the October 22, 2009 meeting. Barry Lewis seconded the motion; the minutes were approved by voice vote.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
GIM Mountain Lakes Investors LLC Appl. 09-239
Stephen Shaw made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Martin Kane seconded the motion. The resolution was carried by a vote of 5 to 0. Voting for the resolution were members Shaw, Lewis, Nachshen, Bailey and Kane
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
GIM Mountain Lakes Investors LLC 49 Bloomfield Avenue
BK. 118.04 Lot 2 Appl. 09-238
Minor Subdivision 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. Charles Applebaum, a licensed attorney in the state of NJ, represented the applicant. They were here to present a subdivision application. The applicant confirmed that the Morris County Planning Board was noticed. They would be creating a vacant lot and asked for four waivers. These items would be handled when the actual site was improved. Stephen Shaw made a motion and Barry Lewis provided the second to accept the waivers. The checklist waivers were approved by vote of 6 to 0 with members Shaw, Lewis, Nachshen, Bailey, Kane and Nix voting in favor.
Charles Applebaum pointed out that currently the property was one large lot with a driveway in between. The current Pinnacle building would stay as one lot and they would be creating a new lot referred to as lot 2.01. Lot 2.02, will be referred to as the Pinnacle lot, and would have no new construction at this time. The new lot (2.01) would create a need for a separate frontage requirements for each lot. The Borough requires 400 feet of frontage for a lot in this zone. After the subdivision Lot 2.01 would have 366.98 feet frontage and Lot 2.02 would have 409.96 feet of frontage.
Wayne Corsey, a planner and engineer with Omland Engineer was sworn in. He presented a Minor Subdivision plan dated 7/23/09 (exhibit A-1) that was already submitted. The property is located on Old Bloomfield Ave. It is 12.56 acres. It currently has non-conforming variances on the property, for the front and parking setbacks and the number of parking spaces. The parking requirement in the zone is 250 spaces and the property has a variance for 201 spaces. The proposed subdivision creates two equal sized lots. They propose creating the new lot line along the existing driveway. As a result they would need a frontage variance for the new lot 2.02. Charles Applebaum asked Mr. Corsey if the parking that currently exists would stay as it is, yes it would. He said the existing road goes to Mountain Lakes #2 and is the only access into that building. Wayne Corsey stated that the lot configuration creates the need for the variance and would be a C-1 and C-2 hardship. Peter Henry stated that the existing parking variance would expire if they increased the square footage of the Pinnacle building. He then confirmed the applicant was not changing the existing building.
Vice Chair Joan Nix asked if the board had any questions. Stephen Shaw asked what the thought process was for subdividing the property. Wayne Corsey stated they were trying to make the property attractive to future tenants. Most tenants like there own lot and now is not the time to build a building without a tenant. Charles Applebaum stated the applicant would seek site approval once they had a tenant. The Pinnacle building is currently fully occupied. Paul Selver asked by approving the subdivision would they create a situation where there could be larger density. Charles Applebaum said no, we expect it to be a fully conforming lot without any other variances when we come back. Peter Henry confirmed the lot they were creating would only need the frontage variance. There are currently no building plans to show the Board. Corey Nachshen asked for clarification of the original resolution from 1999. If the Board allows the subdivision of the property do they loose the original variance? Peter Henry stated the variance applies to the actual building that exists and the 1999 resolution will not be lost if they subdivide the lot. But when you do add a building you may have to make up the parking differential on the newly created lot. Charles Applebaum said that he could represent that the applicant would be building an office building and there may be a concern about the parking when it is designed.
Sam Morrele, the current owner of the property provided some historical background. The property was originally designed by Muscarelle and the plan was for a three building parcel. They are not looking to change building #1; it is fully occupied with extra parking. They want to clean up the property and renovate building #2. He said it was not the right market to spend money on a conceptual design for the third building. Right now the property is not marketable since it has not been subdivided. The applicant wants to make the property a positive ratable. They will work within the building envelope when they design the new building. Their lender would prefer the property be subdivided. Jim Bailey asked if the applicant would be keeping the road to the back lot. Charles Applebaum explained there was an easement to access the back building. If there was a sale of the lot the easement would go with the land.
Joan Nix asked about the landscape buffer between the property and the homes on Sherwood. The applicant said they had cleaned up the area, provided temporary lighting and installed new plantings for the open house. Sam Morrele agreed to add additional evergreens and bushes to the buffer. Peter Henry asked if the applicant had cleaned the wooded area. Yes they had but they were not clearing the site. They may create some foot paths through the undeveloped area but it is not in the current plan to take down trees. They would also clean up the front of the property along Bloomfield Ave.
Vice Chair Joan Nix asked if there were any comments from the public. Jules Stanisci of 4 Littlewood Court although on the Board of the Pine Edge Association was representing himself and wife. He was concerned with the egress from the site. He would like it to stay on Bloomfield Ave. He was also concerned about the rear setback of 100 ft. They would like to see some screening put in place. Jim Hyson of 2 Littlewood Court was concerned about the buffer for the condos and potential tree removal. He felt the driveway was in the buffer area. He saw the parking as a problem especially if it became a doctor’s office. Nelson Bennett of 8 Littlewood Court thanked the board for its work and would like to see a massive buffer to screen the building. Terry McInerney of 12 Littlewood Court asked if the residents could walk the property with the property owner. She was concerned about the fumes from the traffic. She suggested the applicant look at the site from Littlewood Court. Pat Stanisci of 4 Littlewood Court said there had been a fire in their house when they came back after 6 months the wooded lot was gone. Linda Hyson stated the light was shining into the condos and would like to see the buffer increased. Lois Smith of 9 Lockley Court took several series of photos of the property (exhibits 0-1 A-E, 0-2 A-H, 0-3 A-E, 0-4 A-E). She assumes they will be taking down 80% of the trees but understands there are no rules for tree removal on commercial property.
Martin Kane said he would have a hard time approving the application without a landscaping plan. Paul Selver agreed and requested they make a landscape plan a condition of the approval. He was also concerned about density increase associated with creating the subdivision. Jim Bailey said the application provided limited information about the future impact the project had on the community. Stephen Shaw said he understood the application was not a site plan but rather a subdivision. He felt it improved the site and provided an additional ratable for the town. He could see the need for a buffer but everyone has the right to develop their property. Barry Lewis reviewed the prior approval. The applicant has the right to put a building on the lot. They meet all requirements except the frontage and many of the neighboring property do not meet the frontage requirement. Corey Nachshen observed the public did not have an issue with the building however they did not want to see it from their homes. Since the building was located next to a residential area and the buffer had been cleared he did not think it unreasonable to ask for its replacement.
Peter Henry told the board they could not impose a requirement for a buffer since the variance was for the frontage requirement but the applicant could agree to improve the site. Sam Morrele thanked everyone for their comments. They would do what ever they could to enhance the buffer area. Joan Nix and Barry Lewis thought the board should see the landscape plan. Corey Nachshen thought it should be required as part of the resolution. Many of the residence at the meeting asked about including a berm in the landscape plan. Bill Ryden stated there were thresholds for bringing in soil and the buffer design needed to come back to the board for approval however a landscaping plan is not a requirement of a subdivision. Charles Applebaum said the applicant would agree to come back with a buffer plan prior to perfecting the subdivision. The application was carried to January 28, 2010 board meeting.
CIGCO, LLC 1 Hillcrest Road
BK. 95 Lot 36 Appl. 09-240
Minor Subdivision RA
Joan Nix recused herself since she resides within 200 feet of the property. Edward Trawinski, an attorney in the state of NJ, with offices in Morristown presented the application. Mark Walker, an engineer from Dykstra Walker in Lake Hopatcong, was sworn in. Mr. Walker reminded the board that 15,000 square foot is required as a minimum lot size in the RA Zone. The application was for a minor subdivision to create two lots. Exhibit A-1 was a blown up version of the proposed subdivision already submitted. They plan to move the existing house and create a new lot. They have proposed Lot 36 will be the lot the original house is moved to. The remaining lot will be number 36.01. The new lot, 36.01, would be 28,730 square feet 2x the size required. There are no wetlands or flood plains on the property. This is an as of right application.
Edward Trawinski referred to the report from Mr. Ryden. The applicant will submit fully engineered plans at the time of application. We have 190 days to perfect the application. We may not be able to move house within 190 days due to the weather. The applicant is willing to agree to a requirement to move the house within a year and if they do not the approval would expire. They asked if the board could hold the resolution approval until January 28, 2010. Nothing else in Bill Ryden’s letter was an issue with the applicant and it can be reflected in the resolution. The applicant was in receipt of the Shade Tree Commission report. Their attorney said they would comply with all Shade Tree requirements.
Sandy Batty asked if there were any questions from the board. Stephen Shaw asked about the existing garage, the applicant would be removing it. Corey Nachshen asked if the existing addition would be removed from the original house, it would be. Sandy Batty confirmed the Front setback was 64.7 feet for new lot. Jim Bailey asked about the current water restriction. Mark Walker stated the existing house will remain connected to the water supply. The new house water could come from the house that was eliminated years ago. The applicant will have to research with the DEP if they can use the old connection. Bill Ryden said if the house was gone before the restrictions you can not reconnect. Mark Walker stated they would put in a well if needed. Bill Ryden reminded the applicant they would have to comply with the ordinance that states they have to hook up to the water supply when the restrictions are lifted.
Sandy Batty asked how the house would be moved. Edward Peters, of 40 Glen Road, explained the house will be moving over the course of an entire day. They would shore up the chimney and move the whole thing. They would be removing the fieldstone foundation and placing the house on beams; and move it on those beams. The house would be jacked up, a foundation built and then they would lower the house onto the new foundation. They will be removing the aluminum siding and restoring the original stucco.
Sandy Batty asked if the public would like to speak. John Connell, of 40 Dartmouth Road, thanked the board for its service. He said the project should not be approved because it was not consistent with the Master Plan, he was concerned about storm water, the neighborhood traffic, the Boroughs COAH requirements and it’s potential to decrease property values. Mark Walker explained the new storm water management plan would create less run off. The new lot will have drainage pits and the construction would not be disturbing the entire area at the same time. Nigel Smith, of 10 Hillcrest Road was concerned about storm water runoff; he did not see the benefit of the plan. Martha Connell, of 40 Dartmouth was disappointed with the plan. Steve Hu, of 75 Bellvale Road, thought it would change the character of neighborhood.
Bill Ryden told the board the front measurements will be reviewed by the Zoning Officer and the project had a reasonable design for Storm Water Management. Stephen Shaw explained this was a by right application. The board had no reasons to deny the application because they are asking for no variances. Barry Lewis repeated there were no variances required and there was no legal reason to deny application. Martin Kane agreed and said it was an honorable goal to move the house. Sandy Batty explained our ordinances do not allow the board to turn down the application because it does not conform to our Master Plan.
Barry Lewis made a motion that the applicant comply with the conditions in Bill Ryden’s letter, the resolution be adopted at the January meeting, the applicant wave his right to a resolution in 45 days, they comply with the Shade Tree Commission requirements, there be proper disposal of garage, they recertify the setbacks of houses, confirm the driveway run off to the street and comply with the Scarce Resource order. A second was provided by Stephen Shaw. The application was approved by a 6-1 vote with members Batty, Shaw, Lewis, Nachshen, Selver and Bailey voting yes. Board member Kane voted no.
ORDINANCE REVIEW
Stephen Shaw reported that the new ordinances were consistent with the master plan therefore the council voted at their meeting to pass both ordinances. Peter Henry will still rewrite the ordinances for clarity.
COMMITEES
Highland COAH Meeting – The committee will be making a presentation of their progress to the Council shortly.
Master Plan – Barry Lewis, the Borough Manager, asked where the board stood with the Master Plan. Joan Nix told him the committee was working on revising the plan chapters. Once that was done they would give the revised chapters to the planner.
Joan Nix made a motion to adjourn the meeting; a second was provided by Stephen Shaw. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 PM
Respectfully submitted
Cynthia Shaw, Secretary