MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

April 27, 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.

ROLL CALL:

Board Members Present: Nix, Palmer (arr. 8:30), Pitcher, Melikian, Dunn, Webb, Gormally, Lightner Absent: Shaw, Batty, Selver

Also Present: Attorney Paul Campano, Engineer William Ryden

REVIEW OF MINUTES: The amended minutes of the March 23 meeting were approved by voice vote.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Mike Lightner announced that the Board would hear the applicants prior to discussion of the ordinances.

ECLYPSIS CORP. 333 Rt. 46 West

Bl. 7, Lot 7 Appl. #06-222

Major Site Plan Ol-1 zone

Eclypsis was represented by Attorney Richard Sweeney, of the firm Sears, Sweeney, Marcickiewicz. Sweeney referred to the Eclypsis Corporation Overview (Exhibit A1), noting that this is the largest commercial facility in the Borough; Exhibit A2 - Technology Solutions Center.

An aerial photograph was Exhibit A3. Sweeney described this type of photograph to be almost invaluable. Exhibit A5 was a 1996 deed by which Park Lakes restricted itself from residential use until 2046.

Engineer Bill Ryden noted the items requested for waivers from submission requirements in his report, listed in Addendum A of the application. Mike Lightner asked if there was any discussion. Charles Gormally moved to grant the waivers, Rob Pitcher seconded the motion, approved by 8-0 roll call vote.

Richard Bernhardt, professional acoustical engineer, was sworn in, and testified that he is licensed to install this type of facility; he provided credentials and was accepted as a professional witness.

Burnhardt described the operation: Eclypsis provides the computer service network to hospitals; they have developed the environmental and backup facilities to provide these services to approximately 100 hospitals. This service is needed in the event of a power failure at the hospitals. The existing temporary generator has been in service approximately three months. Power is lost approximately one to three times per year. The proposal is a 2 megawatt generator, approximately 50’ x 12’ x 13’ in a sheet metal clad enclosure, mounted on a concrete pad with the fuel tank mounted beneath it. The enclosure is designed to attenuate the sound. The generator is a diesel engine. Within the enclosure, a double walled tank is actively monitored with sensors to alert the Eclypsis corporation. The power source is Jersey Central, with cables underground to the eastern edge of the site. The proposed generator would be located at the rear center of the parking lot. This is the closest point to connect to the electrical system and the point with the least interference of crossing other utility lines. There is an intake air system with baffles to quiet the flow of air to muffle the output noise. This complies with NJ regulations at 65 decibels, at night 50 db at the property line. The ambient noise level at this site, measured at 5 am was over 50 db; most of that noise came from the Route 46 highway. If another 50 db is added, it does not increase the noise. This facility would provide a steady drone, not a loud shocking noise. The weekly test would occur during a weekday, midday between 10 and 2 for approximately 20 minutes. That would provide less than 50 decibels. This location was selected (others eliminated) because of the daycare center located in the facility and their preference to avoid crossing underground wiring on the eastern side. This location would be the least problematic and closest to the power source. If power fails during a natural disaster, it could be out for a few days. The Jersey Central substation is southeast, along Rt. 46 and Fox Hill. The fuel tank holds 6000 gallons of diesel fuel and is totally within the unit. This is safer and less intrusive than installing it within the building. If there is an outage, the load is not transferred for approximately 30 seconds. There is a generator in the building right now, this increases the capacity. The fuel consumption rate is approximately 100 gallons per hour when it is in use. Otherwise it would not need to be refueled.

Burnhardt acknowledged that, if there were a power outage and the generators were activated, it would not be likely that the children would still be outside in the playground. This will replace the temporary generator that exists on the site now. There will be no additional lighting associated with this plan.

Referring to the note on the plan about additional work, Burnhardt explained that the facility is growing, they have asked for a larger switchboard from the power company. This would all be underground work, not included in this application. Sweeney speculated that JCP&L work would be underground and exempt from this Board’s approval. Ryden asked if they have a permit. Burnhardt – no, but we will process it. Ryden asked for that to be a condition of approval. Ryden asked for information regarding the make and model of this equipment for approval. Ryden asked about the consideration of alternative locations. Burnhardt said that the landlord preferred that it not be located near the entrance for aesthetic reasons.

Board questions: Joan Nix asked if the existing generator is no longer sufficient, how long would this one suffice? This transformer proposed is the largest that JCP&L will provide. Eclypsis is not interested in developing beyond this capacity. Barbara Palmer asked whether the Fire Department should be contacted. Ryden – he doesn’t think so. Jackson – this application was not sent to the Fire Department. Sweeney said that they would abide by any provisions. Responding to the possibility of a fuel leak, there is a double wall and an alarm is set off if there is any leakage.

Comments and questions from the public: Bruce Quinby, neighbor at 19 Rainbow Trail, said he was here when Newsweek applied and the same questions were asked. He opposes reducing the buffer between this site and Rainbow Trail. Residents are definitely against reducing the buffer to prevent reduction of property values. Quinby said that the tank was put inside the building for that reason, to prevent reduction of property values. Chiyan Chan, 31 Rainbow Trail, asked why the generator could not be put inside the building. What is the worst case scenario if there is an explosion? Have you considered that? This is dangerous. Security is my issue, there could be a malfunction, an explosion. Why can’t it be put in the basement?

Response: there is no basement in this building. This is not an explosive environment, it would be difficult to ignite that fuel. There are 24 hour surveillance cameras. The company thinks this is the preferable location considering the day care center and the neighborhood. Lightner – if the company expands and requires a larger generator, what would you do with this equipment? Response - our lease requires us to remove the equipment if we were to relocate. This could be a condition of approval. Burnhardt scaled the photo to estimate that the generator would be approximately 350 feet from Rainbow Trail. Burnhardt repeated that it would not be feasible to place this on the eastern side because the other utility services are located there. There is also an elevation dropoff in that area.

Chris Richter, 5 Cove Place, representing the Park Lakes Tennis Club, asked what the buffer requirement was? Sweeney’s response: 100 feet. Richter asked whether the east side location would be conforming and why couldn’t it be located there? Burnhardt – the landlord asked that it not be located there. Richter – is any landscaping proposed to shield this structure from the Park Lakes Club? Burnhardt – no, not at this time; there are code issues, he doesn’t know how close he can site the generator to the building. Lightner – there is neighborhood objection to the proposed location. Burnhardt – we could install screening for the structure. Ryden noted that there is a 150 setback requirement to the structure. If it were located on the east side, variances would not be required. Francis Pelliccia, 16 Rainbow Trail, asked it the Borough would reassess the properties after this This structure would be 81 feet from the Park Lakes line.

Borough Manager Gary Webb – the property owners could file an appeal after this development if they thought it impacted their property values.

George Paul James of Keller & Kirkpatrick described his academic and professional experience as an engineer and planner and was accepted as an expert witness. James’ testimony – the property is in the OL-1 zone requiring a building setback of 150 feet and a 100 foot planted buffer. The generator would be 370 feet from the closest property line on Rainbow Trail. The relief would be justified by the nature of the Eclypsis business, data storage for hospitals, which is very important from a medical standpoint. The variances apply to only one site, they would achieve the purpose of the Municipal Land Use Law and advance the purposes without detriment to the public good. The Park Lakes Tennis Club’s closest property to this site is their parking lot. It is not adjacent to any residential use. The ordinance is designed to protect residential property. We are requesting relinquishing 20 feet of the buffer. Screen plantings could be placed along the Park Lakes side and also along the Rainbow Trail side. Lightner asked why the generator couldn’t be placed on the eastern side of the building, out of site of the residents and the tennis club. James – there is a slope and wetlands area on the eastern side. We did not investigate this. James did not specify, but he noted that there are species of rhododendron that could be used to screen the 13 foot high structure from the neighbors.

From the public: Chris Richter – the Park Lakes deed restriction expires in 40 years; if they sell, wouldn’t this structure impact the value of this property? George – technology changes so quickly, I doubt that this will exist in 40 years. Toby Frey – Board member of Park Lakes - If this were located on the east side, it could be just as easily shielded by landscaping. Sweeney said he feels there are code limitations and they would get an answer as to why it shouldn’t be located on the east side. Lightner – that would eliminate the need for a variance and would eliminate the concerns of the neighbors.

Sweeney requested that they carry the application to the May 25 meeting. No further notice required. The applicant retained the exhibits.

Carried to May 25:

WEBER HOMES Fanny Road & Morris Avenue

Bl. 88, Lots 17.01, 18, 19, 20 Appl. #06-220

Major Site Plan R-AH

Carried to April 27:

ROBERT KLINGENBURG Appl. #05-217

Mike Lightner pointed out that the applicant is not here. This application has been carried since the October hearing. We should consider dismissal for lack of prosecution without prejudice, with the option to refile. Motion to dismiss by Gormally, seconded by Webb, carried by 8– 0 roll call. Marge Jackson will send a letter notifying the applicant.

DISCUSSION: Ordinances 06-06, 07-06, 08-06

Ordinance 06-06 addresses all residential development fees to fund COAH.

Board comments: Gormally – this was based on a model by Planner Susan Kimball. It has been sent to COAH to approve the concept. Frank Dunn commented on page 4; this implies that COAH takes it over indefinitely; when would it come back to us? Gormally – this is a penalty provision if items A through H occur. Lightner – we are subject to COAH jurisdiction. The municipality cannot direct COAH. Webb – this is the first step, we also have to supply them with a spending plan. Palmer asked, if these are COAH rules, why do they have to be in our ordinances? Lightner – this indicates that we are consenting to their procedures. Gormally – at the Council level, one of the concerns was what triggers the development fee. Some of those provisions are in section 2. Webb – each year we do added assessments of approximately 6.5 million to entice other communities.

Gormally - we still have an unmet need and would need to raise the money. Nix – page 3, item 6 indicates there would be an added assessment with significant improvements. Pitcher advocated that there be absolutely no exemptions. Gormally – you would want to exempt COAH developers and the municipality, schools, houses of worship, and not for profit organizations.

Palmer – did council consider a lower percentage? Gormally – there was no discussion, this is what council favored.

Dunn – page 3 doesn’t make sense; 30% plus 20% leaves only 50% ; Lightner clarified that the 30% refers to ‘after subtracting the funds used’, it means the same thing. Dunn – what revenues are referred to in A? Dunn asked that the language be clarified. Lightner recommended ‘at least 30% of the remaining revenues’. Rob Pitcher made the motion to recommend the ordinance as drafted with Lightner’s proposed change, based on the ordinance being consistent with the master plan, Gary Webb seconded the motion, carried by 7-0 roll call with 1 abstention.

Ordinance 07-06, building envelope requirements.

Gary Webb – this alters the steep slope ordinance in RC-1 and RC-2; it was not clear that the previous ordinance applied to these zones because they were not specifically noted.

Gormally – this was the intention of the initial ordinance, they were accidentally excluded.

The dimensions could be considered width or depth interchanged

Ryden – in order to do a cluster plan in the RC zones, the building envelope would be tested on the individual lots. There are no setbacks or building envelope restrictions applicable to the clustered plan. Barbara Palmer made the motion to recommend the ordinance to Council with correction of the RC-1 and RC-2, RC-3 typos and a statement that it is consistent with the Master Plan, seconded by Rob Pitcher, carried by 8-0 roll call vote.

Ordinance 08-06

This ordinance was proposed by the Weber attorney, Roy Kurnos, when it was pointed out that his plan would not be consistent with the current height ordinance. Lightner expressed concern that there are no height limits. Ryden – the height restrictions remain, this changes how you measure from existing and proposed grades. The buildings will be relative to the particular site, it does not have the same impact as when you create a structure next to other existing structures in the neighborhood. Lightner – concerned how this would impact that area, impacting the open space. Ryden – this is not limited to this particular site, it would apply to any affordable housing zone. Palmer – concerned that this plan is very different from the initial concept proposed by the developers and agreed to by the Borough. Gormally agreed that the concept plan of the original Wildwood Meadows has changed . The recent height ordinance was not in effect when the original agreement was made. Lightner – our discussion should be directed to what is before us; I don’t think anyone wants to see flat roofs. Webb – the entire lot will be regraded so it is not reasonable to hold them to the original grade restrictions. Board comments seemed to agree that the G paragraph was acceptable since the entire lot would be regraded. Gormally – Council did not have substantive comments regarding this ordinance. Board members were concerned that the townhouse size is close to 5000 square feet; however, even though one of the owners has to be 55 or older, it does not restrict residents under the age of 18. Gormally – Council does want this site to be developed. There is concern that if there are too many restrictions, the owners might not pursue the development.

Ryden – I don’t think that changing the ordinance is really going to impact the height of the structure. It technically solves some potential variance requirements; visually and site impact wise, it is not going to change the appearance. You won’t know the difference when you look at it. Lightner – it is beneficial to the community if the units are more valuable. Gormally – Council did not have substantive discussion because we knew it was coming to the Planning Board. Ryden doesn’t believe that the goal of this ordinance was to save three feet of topography, it was meant to apply to structures within a neighborhood.

Armen asked for a copy of the new R-ah zone 245-9

Rob Pitcher recommended approval as drafted, consistent with Master Plan, etc., seconded by Armen Melikian. Nix – no, the 3^rd one makes sense, they should not be relieved from the other two. Palmer – would like to make sure that Council gets what they had initially contracted for, she agrees with I, the other two are enabling this development. The motion to recommend was passed by 6 – 2 roll call (Nix, Palmer voted ‘no’).

OTHER MATTERS:

Mike Lightner said that Council would like appointment of members to the Joint Ordinance Committee. Previously the five members were Batty, Palmer, Selver and Dunn; Shaw was on the Committee as a Council member. Frank Dunn agreed to step down. It was suggested that we check with Paul Selver because he has had problems attending the meetings.

Report from Master Plan committee meeting to discuss the King of Kings property – Barbara Palmer’s memo referred to revisions in the Master Plan. Mike Lightner suggested provisions to refer specifically to this site, recommending that the minimum acreage for clustering in the RC zone be reduced to 8 acres. Joan Nix asked about the confusion of the entire parcel versus the three acre lot that is not in the RC-1 zone. The zoning map shows that only 8 acres are in the RC1 zone and this is the only property in that zone. We concluded that clustering is preferable in this site. We can approve the Master Plan change, but only Council can approve the zone change.

Mike Lightner suggested that we consider a hearing on May 25 to propose amending the master plan, in accordance with the comments in Barbara Palmer’s memo. Motion by Gormally, seconded by Pitcher, carried by 8-0 vote.

Mike Lightner suggested a motion to recommend to Council that 245-16F1b be amended to reduce the minimum requirement for cluster housing from 10 to 8 acres in all three RC zones, being consistent with the Master Plan. Motion by Nix, seconded by Pitcher, carried by 8-0 roll call.

The Stormwater Element and these two changes to the Master Plan should be scheduled for a public hearing May 25.

Mike Lightner noted that we are governed by Roberts Rules of Order. We have discretion as to how we deal with feedback with the public. State law allows us to limit how long an individual may speak. Public comment could be limited to the matter being heard with consideration to other public input at the end of the meeting. We will add a public session to the agenda.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

.

Respectfully submitted,

Marge Jackson, Secretary