MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

January 26, 2006

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. 7:40),

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 7:30:

February 23 June 22 October 26

March 23 July 27 November 30

April 27 August 24 December 14

May 25 September 28 January 25, 2007

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 12/08/05 minutes were modified and approved by voice vote.

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:

WEBER HOMES Fanny Road & Morris Avenue

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 Mt. Laurel housing. Subsequent to that, the deed restriction was lifted to allow 44 units, 8 of which will be affordable housing.

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 wish to waive them or stipulate that they be included as conditions of approval?

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 New Jersey, was accepted as an expert witness.

Minnow distributed a 9 page visual aid, smaller images of the plans distributed to the Board.

Exhibit A1, prepared by Dykstra Walker, was a colored rendition of the site plan dated 1/26/06. Minnow described the three basic product types: 20 townhomes, two multi-family structures with 8 units each and 8 affordable units within one building. He pointed out that they tried to create as many side entry garage units as possible. They have designed the bulk of the living areas to the rear. The two condominium buildings each have eight units. These are attractive to active adults because they have rear entry garages and elevators to take them to their living area. The parking is hidden from the general community. Minnow said he would describe the landscaping aspects at a later time.

Exhibit A3 showed the front, rear and end elevations of the townhome buildings. Minnow said they looked carefully at the architecture in Mountain Lakes and borrowed from the Hapgood style, including a strong stone base and stucco façade with plenty of glass and pitched roofs. One of the constraints was the height ordinance, which has been met. Dormers were added to create interest to the roofs.

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. Minnow pointed out that the height restrictions were carefully considered and adhered to.

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. Minnow said that they have provided many more spaces than required in the complex. There are 68 surface spaces and 74 interior spaces planned. Steve Shaw asked if the mechanicals would be provided in the multifamily and affordable housing buildings. The townhome condensers will be on the back side of the 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 Fanny Road.

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, Minnow said that is typically done with construction, not at the Planning Board level. Item #16, trash rooms and enclosures, do we still provide rear yard pick-up? Gary Webb - yes we provide that but our existing townhomes have a small alcove or shed next to the garage. There was discussion as to the requirements for location of trash pickup and the Borough obligation. Minnow described that the multi-family occupants would bring their trash to the structures provided for that purpose. Joan Nix asked whether the stone would be cultured stone and asked to see examples of that stone.

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.

Regina described the entrance with flowering cherry trees and stone walls with boxwoods. Along the road the trees will be a powerful red in the autumn. They prefer repetition and unification of a species, rather than a mixture. Each townhouse will have different flowering trees that flower either in the Spring or the Summer, to provide a variation of interest throughout the year. They have recommended deer resistant trees. In the buffer areas along the street we have plantings to soften the impact of the buildings. The street trees will be 3 ½ to 4” caliber, approximately 15 feet tall. We have designed the plantings and will also plant and maintain the plantings.

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 Fanny Road.

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 Mountain Lakes and would require a variance. DuBrow said that the fence provides a feeling of privacy, as would the paver detail at the entrances. The fence, sign and stone walls would require variance approval. Discussion of those issues was deferred.

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 10-20-10 fertilizer would not be allowed in the Borough because we restrict the phosphorous content of fertilizers.

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. Walker referred to Exhibit A1, pointing out the former Fusee plant area that is approximately one-third of the proposed site. The wetlands have a 50 foot transition area. There is a 1000 foot long private access road planned, 142 parking spaces proposed, (some interior) and a roofed dumpster in the same architectural style as the buildings. There will be infiltration units to collect roof runoff. A total of 117.4 parking spaces are required; this plan provides 142, which includes 4 spaces for each townhome. On-street parking is not anticipated. Each of the multi-family buildings will have 17 underground spaces. Between the two multifamily units is a nine slot public parking lot. 17 spaces are provided for the 8 affordable units.

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. Permit 11 would allow the transition area averaging plan to dedicate areas in excess of the 50 feet required. The purpose of this proposal is to reduce the transition area in other locations. General permit #6 would allow them to fill ½ acre of wetlands without compensation elsewhere.

Most of the utilities will come from Powerville Road. The extension of the water main will require a permit from the DEP. Walker discussed the affirmed capacity analysis; the DEP calculation requirements are very conservative. They may consider an interconnection with the Town of Boonton, if necessary. Bill Ryden described the restrictions of water supply and firm capacity; well # 5 provides 1/2 to 2/3 of our supply, but you need to discount your primary source. If we do that, we cannot meet the requirement. The storm drain lines would be owned by the association. After questions from the Board about the lack of available parking for guests, Walker said that they could discuss vertical curb detail to allow parking along the street.

A retaining wall is planned to support the entry from Morris Ave. The modular block detail was not included in the plans but will be provided.

Walker referred to sheet 6 of 9 to demonstrate that they have complied with the average grade elevation restrictions. Walker described their calculations of elevation of the townhomes; with the two structures to the west with significant grade changes, they have split the structures and calculated the two elevations separately. Bill Ryden said he wanted to see the analyses for the entire building.

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. Walker said they would insert stakes. Board members should walk individually to avoid Sunshine Law restrictions. The Board discussed moving the meeting to February 16 but Walker thought that plans would not be complete in time for that meeting. The application was adjourned to the meeting scheduled for February 23.

Carried to February 23:

ROBERT KLINGENBURG Appl. #05-217

The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.

.

Respectfully submitted,

Marge Jackson, Secretary