MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

May 25, 2006

Chairman Lightner read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement Notice: Notice of this meeting was given to the Citizen and the Daily Record, posted with the Borough Clerk and on the Bulletin Board and made available to those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.

ROLL CALL:

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

Also Present: Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer William Ryden

REVIEW OF MINUTES: Revised minutes of the 4/27 meeting were approved by voice vote.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Carried from 4/27:

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, and Marcickiewicz. Sweeney recalled Richard Bernhardt, professional acoustical engineer. Sweeney pointed out that Mrs. Batty, Mr. Selver and Mr. Shaw were not present at the previous hearing; they could participate in discussion but were not eligible to vote on this application.

Bernhardt testified that he has considered the alternate location suggested by the Board at the previous hearing, located next to the building in the northeast corner. Considering the building codes, issues of constructability in terms of cost and phasing, he has determined that there are no obvious problems with that location. However, there are existing electrical drainage and water line facilities in that location. The cost estimate of locating the generator there was entered as Exhibit A7; Bernhardt described the alternate location evaluation, estimating the total additional cost to be $240,000.

The evaluation report from Mtn. Lakes Fire Official Tom Trepasso, dated May 25, 2006, was submitted to the Board. Joan Nix questioned whether a fire from diesel fuel would be fought with water. Bernhardt said no, Trepasso was referring to a fire within the building. Attorney Henry pointed out that there are two different issues: there could be a fire within the building or a diesel fire that could spread to the building. Gary Webb clarified that Trepasso was supplying information regarding the closest fire hydrant, he was not making a judgment. Armen Melikian asked about the existing trailer; Bernhardt showed the location of the existing trailer and the proposed location of the generator on the site plan.

From the public: Toby Frey, representing the adjoining property of the Park Lakes Tennis Club, asked for clarification of the proposed and alternate location. Jesse Silva, also from Park Lakes,

asked whether the preference driving the two locations was only cost. Bernhardt said no, the owner of the building will not allow us to locate the generator in the alternate location. Attorney

Henry clarified that this means there is no alternative. The owner does not want it there, plus there are practical reasons ($240,000) for not using the alternative location.

Exhibit A7 was the budget analysis for relocation of 2MW generator. Sweeney said that this is not a popularity contest. He noted that there is 80 feet of undisturbed woods between this property and the Park Lakes property. Park Lakes is located in a residential zone, but is not used as residential property. So, now Park Lakes comes in and asks for the protection of residential property. Eclypsis is being asked to limit their facilities for the convenience of people who play tennis 80 feet away from the proposed generator; there is no balance of detriments.

From the audience, Frances Pelliccia of 16 Rainbow Trail, said I don’t play tennis; I am a resident and still oppose this because of the sound and I request that if this use is allowed, there should be a reassessment of the value of our residential properties.

Toby Frey pointed out that the covenant that Park Lakes signed was to achieve a tax break to prevent developing the property. The Borough was happy to agree to that covenant. He has not heard why the generator could not be placed on the east side of the property.

Bernhardt testified that a noise level of between 55 and 62 decibels was monitored in front of Borough Hall this evening before the meeting. This room currently registers 52 decibels, at quiet, when no one is speaking. The sound from the generator would be 50 decibels at the property line.

James Ruddy, director of facilities for Eclipsys and responsible for projects such as this generator application, was sworn in. He testified that he spoke to the landlord who was in agreement with the existing temporary generator and the proposal. We need the landlord’s approval for anything outside the building. Paul Selver asked if there was a consideration of reasonableness. Ruddy was not sure. Lightner pointed out that the alternate location requires a variance, he asked Ruddy whether their lease would allow them to get a location that didn’t require a variance but would allow them to continue their operation. Ruddy said the landlord’s objections are connected to the removal of significant trees, exposure of the generator to both Rt. 46 and the Boulevard, plus exposure to the other tenants of the building. This is the most logical location. I believe we could screen it so nobody would know it was there.

Selver asked for background of the setback requirement. Lightner thought it was to protect residential property from commercial development. Nix pointed out that two variances were required: relief from 100’ from the property line and 150’ for any accessory structure. Ruddy testified that the trailer has been there 6 months; Shaw asked if there had been any complaints, Ruddy said no. Bernhardt testified that the permanent generator would be more quiet than the temporary facility. The generator would resemble a trailer.

Peter Henry said: Trepasso noted that it would be an advantage to have the fuel tank a safe distance from the office complex. Henry also asked how the increased cost would compare to the total cost of the project. Bernhardt – we estimate $750,000 to install the generator, the alternative location would be another 30% increase.

Toby Frey asked if there were any reasons to prevent the alternative location other than the

owner’s preference. Nix asked if the variance goes with the tenant of the property. Henry – the variance goes with the property. Sweeney – if Eclypsis leaves, the equipment would also leave.

Sweeney offered additional comments as a summation. The ordinance is intended to accommodate the adjoining residential property. Each of the items of light and air are addressed by this proposal. The generator location will be fully screened. There will be no additional noise from the ambient. It will run once each week at midday for testing. The only other time it would run would be during a power failure. Sweeney pointed out there is much other equipment on the site and no one has complained about the noise that equipment created. If you weigh the benefits and detriments, there should be little issue. Selver asked if they would be willing to consent to conditions in a variance regarding limitations of the noise. Sweeney – absolutely, there are State restrictions; if there is ever an issue that this violates the State noise standards, the applicatnt would return to this Board.

Regarding the merits of the application: Steve Shaw – he thinks the objection is primarily about sound, so that seems to have been addressed and the applicant has agreed to conditions of approval. Gary Webb asked if the temporary generator is visible from Park Lakes. Melikian said yes, it is visible but it has no screening. Joan Nix said that the testimony of the owner’s objection is not very strong, he does not choose that location. Lightner – cost would add to the applicant’s hardship; all we can do is to approve their application or not. Peter Henry noted that cost is not considerd to be a hardship. Gormally – we must balance the benefits versus the detriments. Henry – the applicant has claimed that removal of trees and location in the front would be more aesthetically detrimental.

Melikian – I walked the property, the proposed area is already used for utilities and it is invisible from other parts of the property. Batty asked what screening has been offered. Sweeney – we will provide whatever is requested. Batty suggested they work with the Shade Treee Commission.

Attorney Henry reviewed suggested conditions from last month, including imposing conditions on testing (frequency and length of time). Sweeney said testing will be midday for 30 minutes, once per week. Required permits will be obtained. The Borough engineer will receive information about make, model, and noise limitations, etc. The applicant will remove the equipment if they vacate the property. Henry said that a variance goes with the land, if the landlord gets another tenant with the same power requirement, the variance is permitted; we cannot condition the variance to this tenant. Sweeney pointed out that this use services a public health service.

Armen Melikian made the motion for approval with the conditions stated by Attorney Henry, motion seconded by Charles Gormally and approved by 4-1 roll call vote (Nix denied).

Carried from March 23:

WEBER HOMES Fanny Road & Morris Avenue

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

Major Site Plan R-AH

Mayor Shaw said that he proposed the outline of what Council was requesting from the Planning Board – three questions were outlined in his 5/24 memo.

Kurnos premarked Exhibits A21 thru A28, concept plan of Wildwood Meadows, the proposal that was the subject of the 2004 developer’s agreement between Council and Rensselaer.

William E. Weber, contract purchaser of the subject property, described his review of the Wildwood Meadows plans, the ordinance for this zone and the agreement between the Borough and the owner.

In response to Kurnos’ questions, Weber testified that this plan is not significantly larger; he compared A1 and the WWM plan. There are five buildings of townhomes in the rear of the property plus three multi-family buildings along Fanny Road. The primary difference is impervious lot coverage (this plan is approximately 3000 square feet less). Keep in mind that the 2004 agreement was based on a concept plan. The separation between the buildings is different; this plan has at least 30 feet; the WWM separation was less than 20 feet in some cases and as little as 10 feet in others. Regarding parking, our plan exceeds RSIS standards and also exceeds your ordinance. On the WWM plan, the overflow parking was far removed from the buildings. Regarding circulation, we made improvements by moving the Morris Avenue entrance away from the wetlands. The FAR on the current plan is 30.2%, well under the 35% limitation. The WWM plan did not recognize the topography of this property. The WWM plan did not calculate the basements. In many cases, considering the topography, they would have been considered stories above grade. The affordable units in WWM were depicted in one building, this plan has the same concept. He referred to buildings with stacked units as ‘multiplex’. He prefers this plan with each unit on one floor, rather than the stacked and staggered units (upper and lower units sharing the middle floor space.) He preferred the current plan for an age restricted community where accessability could be an issue; the current buildings would have elevators.

Weber said that neither one of the proposals would comply with the current height ordinance.

Exhibit A25 was compared to A6.

Comparing the townhomes in the two proposals, Exhibit A24 (elevation on WWM) versus A3 (elevations of townhomes), both are 2 ½ stories and have dormer treatments on the roof over standard size walls; the perception of height would be similar on both plans.

Weber responded as to whether the currently proposed units are substantially larger than WWM; he said no. Exhibit A26 vs. A4, comparing the first two floors of WWM, the average was 2525 square feet; on the first two levels of Jubilee, the average is 2630 square feet. The basement size was not depicted with WWM but would have added 1300 to 1500 sq. feet. This plan shows lofts, averaging 642 square feet. The lofts of WWM were not calculated because it was considered a conceptual plan.

Comparing the multiplex units, Weber showed Ex. A8 (avg. 1900 sq. feet) & Ex. A27 (floor plans for stacked and staggered WWM concept, averaging 2018 square feet).

Weber said that the current plans are superior for the age restricted market because they are more accessible; townhomes will have individual elevators and the multiplex buildings will have common elevators.

Exhibit A28 was a comparison of WWM and the current plan. Weber reviewed the comparison, pointing out that WWM did not consider the topography, it was designed as though there was a flat lot. Neither plan would have met the current height ordinance.

Kurnos reviewed the 3 questions and summarized that (1) the deviations are minor, (2) there are no major deviations applicable, (3) they would have been necessary under the concept brochure.

Mike Lightner asked why the WWM units couldn’t have been planted deeper. Weber - in certain areas with great topo changes, stories above grade would have occurred. In some cases, the loft area is greater than 40% of the second story; that was included in the calculations. Nix noted that the first and second stories of the two plans are very much the same. She pointed out that the Borough had asked for dormers. Lightner asked for clarification about why this comparison of the two plans was required.

Shaw said it was a result of Sandy Batty’s question to Council of whether there were substantial differences between the agreement plan and the current plan. Council decided that the Planning Board should determine whether there was substantial deviation.

Sandy Batty said it was basically a question of size and whether the size was dictating the need for relief from the new height ordinance. She was concerned about the units with the 3^rd floor living space and also the size of the center building along Fanny Road.

Barbara Palmer pointed out that the agreement listed 2500 square foot townhouses, where this plan is up to 4700 square feet. Lightner noted that we received testimony that the original calculations were erroneous; they did not include the basement and loft calculations. Sandy Batty said that, in some of the units, the first two stories differ by 16%. Would that be considered minor? Mike Lightner asked how you determine what changes would have been made based on conditions on the site. Steve Shaw said that the two plot plans are different but the town homes are similar; it’s only the multi-family buildings that differ substantially. At that time, Council was more focused on the aesthetics of the development, not the details.

There was Board discussion as to what determines a minor change or changes in the concept of the development. Shaw said he interpreted Council’s concern that the development be upscale if they were lifting the deed restriction. Batty said that the Planning Board was concerned about the density of the units and now we’re also being asked to allow higher floor area and height limits. Paul Selver asked, if we hadn’t made the height ordinance changes, would both plans be compliant? Weber said yes, he believes both plans could have worked. Roy Kurnos said that he still believes that there is compliance with the ordinance; he disagrees with Engineer Ryden’s interpretation. Roy Kurnos said he was present during the negotiations with Council and he believed that the aesthetics of the development, including the Hapgood style, were of paramount concern to the Council and that they now resemble the WWM plan. Lightner said he interprets ‘minor’ as referring to minor deviations to the concept plan, not changes to details.

Sandy Batty said she does not feel qualified to determine whether these plans would have qualified prior to last year’s ordinance change. Joan Nix prefers that the units be changed to fit the site and the ordinance rather than the ordinance being changed to accommodate the units as designed.

Regarding whether this plan violates the Mt. Laurel plan, Kurnos said that our ordinance requires the Mt. Laurel units to be integrated in the development; they don’t have to be integrated within the same structure with the market rate units.

Armen Melikian and Gary Webb agreed that the applicant’s description alleviated their concerns about the amount of deviation from the plan. Gary asked Bill Ryden whether either project

would have satisfied the previous height ordinance. Ryden said there is no way to evaluate the concept plan. Kurnos referred to the 1/18/2006 memo from Bill Ryden. Kurnos asked Marc Walker to respond to that letter. Steve Shaw asked that the draft minutes of this meeting be available for the 6/12 Council meeting.

There was discussion of moving the 6/22 meeting to 6/29 because Engineer Ryden, Paul Selver and Mike Lightner said they could not attend on 6/22. Marge Jackson pointed out that an applicant for a soil moving permit, Cherepakhov, may have sent notices for the 6/22 meeting. The Board agreed to change the next meeting from June 22^nd to June 29^th. If the Cherepakhov notices have been mailed, the Borough will assist the applicant in correcting the notices.

MASTER PLAN:

Chapter XIII - Stormwater Management Plan

Steve Shaw asked whether this was consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan. Bill Ryden said that Council had adopted the Municipal Stormwater Management Plan, but it wasn’t adopted as a Master Plan Element. Peter Henry said this plan should be followed by a Stormwater Ordinance. Barbara Palmer said that this document does not meet the standards of the Master Plan. She suggested changes. Gary Webb agreed to revise the document.

The hearing was carried to the June 29 meeting.

Amendment to Land Use Plan Element, Block 166, Lot 3

This amendment removes the reference to age-restricted multi-family units. The motion to approve was made by Steve Shaw, seconded by Charles Gormally and carried by 9-0 roll call vote. Referring to this property, the Planning Board also recommended a change to ordinance 245.16F, minimum tract size for clustered housing in the RC-1 site. The Board recommended that the minimum development size for this area should be changed from 10 acres to 8 acres.

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

.

Respectfully submitted,

Marge Jackson, Secretary