MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 5, 2015

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 5, 2015 The August 5, 2015 Jackson Township Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with a salute to the flag by all present. Sean Gertner read the Open Public Meetings Act Statement and announced that adequate notice has been provided for this meeting. ROLL CALL: Carl Book Anthony Marano John Burrows John Suttles Peter Maher Sheldon Hofstein Kathryn McIlhinney Stephen Costanzo ABSENT: Joseph Schulman ALSO PRESENT: Evan Hill, Board Engineer, Ernie Peters, Board Planner, Jeffrey Purpuro, Zoning Officer, Frank A. Miskovich, Traffic Engineer, Fran DeBellis, Court Reporter, and Danielle Golba, Zoning Board Recording Secretary RESOLUTIONS Resolution of Appointments to the Board of Adjustment for the Towship of Jackson for the period of July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 Motion to approve by SUTTLES/Maher YES: Book, Maher, Marano, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo Dylan Connell - Block 13105, Lot 26 2 Chelsea Road Motion to approve by HOFSTEIN/Suttles YES: Book, Maher, Marano, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo Carlos Yepez - Block 10305, Lot Woods Edge Drive Motion to approve by HOFSTEIN/Suttles YES: Book, Maher, Marano, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo Scott Bartolomey Block 7201, Lot 10 5 Michigan Court Motion to approve by HOFSTEIN /Suttles YES: Book, Maher, Marano, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo Daniela Ranieri-Blackmore Block 11406, Lot Perrineville Road Motion to approve by SUTTLES /Hofstein YES: Book, Maher, Marano, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo Central Jersey Rifle & Pistol Club Block 17601, Lots,8,9,12, S. Stump Tavern Road Carried to the next meeting. MINUTES-None APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS Motion to approve a voucher for Torro Reporting, LLC in the amount of $ for the meeting of July 15, 2015 by SUTTLES/Hofstein. YES: Book, Maher, McIlhinney, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Mr. Purpuro advised that Application Number 7 on the agenda (Pushkin Estates, LLC) would be carried to October 7 due to the fact they did not notice. 2. Mr. Costanzo announced that the Greentree Application would be moved up to the fifth position on the agenda and the Donald Cove Application would be moved to the sixth position. (Whereupon the Board Professionals were sworn by the Court Reporter.) Page 1 of 11

2 MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION- None. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS- Hope Cathedral Administrative, Incorporated. Evan Hill said states there is no one present for the application, as it typical for many administrative approvals, and that he thinks it is a simple application. The applicant submitted a plan entitled Final As-Built Survey in prepared originally in They have since marked proposed improvements they would like. Mr. Purpuro clarified the record stating the applicant is Hope Cathedral. Mr. Hill stated they are looking to place a trailer 60X112, and that in order to accommodate the trailer they have to remove 1 parking spot from the site. The original site plan approval in 2010 granted approval for them to construct 97 spaces where 88 1/2 were required. They still meet the ordinance requirements with elimination of the one parking space. In addition to the trailer, they are proposing 2 storage containers along the northern property line, approximately 53 to 56 feet south of the northerly property line. They are typical storage containers for storing of equipment related to their activities. Mr. Hill said that he feels from an engineering perspective the storage containers would not adversely impact the site. He will ask the applicant to revise the title of their drawing to Administrative Approval Plan rather than from Final As-Built Plan to avoid future confusion. Mr. Costanzo asked the Board if they had any questions. Mr. Burrows said that it was a lot of storage and asked what they will use the storage containers for. Mr. Hill explained they are shipping containers that would be placed in the back field area. Mr. Costanzo asked if we can have them stipulate as to what they will be used for. He asks if the there will be any issues with egress. Mr. Hill said that has to do with fire code, but in his opinion it is adequate. Dr. Hofstein asked if the units are in place. Mr. Hill confirmed that yes, they were. No further questions/discussion from the Board. Motion to approve by: MAHER/McIlhinney Yes: Book, Burrows, Maher, McIlhinney, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo. APPLICATIONS 1. RONALD BOU BLOCK : LOT 31 - ZONE PRC - 56 BALTUSROL DR. (Ronald Bou, residing at 56 Baltusrol Drive, Jackson, NJ was sworn.) Mr. Costanzo asked Mr. Bou for a description of his application and hardship. Mr. Bou explained that his Mother-in-law has COPD and uses an electric nebulizer. If there is an issue with the electricity going out she wouldn t be able to use it. Mr. Costanzo asked Mr. Bou if he was in receipt of the Remington Vernick Letter of July 20, 2015and Mr. Bou stated that he was. Mr. Peters asked the applicant if he was proposing a 22 kilowatt generator on the right-hand side of the garage where the air conditioning units are and Mr. Bou responded yes. Mr. Peters further asked if the generator would be placed on a concrete pad and Mr. Bou said that it would. Mr. Peters had not further inquiry of Mr. Bou. Mr. Costanzo asked the Board if there were any questions or discussion on the application. Seeing none, he opened it to the public. Open public forum Close public forum Motion to approve made by MCKILHINNEY/Suttles. Yes: Book, Burrows, Maher, McIlhinney, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo 2. Timothy Johnson - BLOCK : LOT:9 - ZONE:RG BLAIR STREET (Timothy Johnson residing at 1011 Blair Street, Jackson NJ was sworn.) Mr. Costanzo asked the applicant for a description of the nature of his application. Mr. Johnson said he would like to construct an 80x60 pole barn accessory building with a concrete slab base. Mr. Costanzo further asked if the building would have any utilities. Mr. Johnson said it would have just electric. Mr. Costanzo asked what the intent of the building would be and if there would be any commercial operation or storage in the building. Mr. Johnson explained he has four boys and it would be for storage of assorted bicycles, recreation equipment, ATVs, and no commercial storage. Page 2 of 11

3 Mr. Purpuro said the applicant was here because the proposed building would be 26 feet from the front yard property line where a minimum of 60 is required. Mr. Costanzo asked if the second frontage, which is a dirt road, was a designated road in the township. Mr. Purpuro said that it is, and that it is on the tax maps and shown as a right of way. Mr. Peters added that if it is platted and shown on the tax map, it s a right of way the municipality owns, then by definition it is a road. Mr. Costanzo called for questions or comments from the Board. Mr. Book said it was an awfully big pole barn and suggested why not put it to left of the pool in the corner. Mr. Johnson doesn t believe it will fit there. If it will it would be a better option but really didn t think it would. Mr. Book asked the applicant if he was locked into the 4800 sq. feet and he replied that yes, he was. Mr. Book asked him to elaborate on what he meant by recreation and storage. The applicant explained it will mainly be to play ball, get out of the house and give his wife some sanity. Mr. Book asked if it was his intention to have others come for coaching or if he would be renting it out. Mr. Johnson replied no, it would be just for him and his boys. Open public forum Close public forum Mr. Costanzo asked about the egress; how many doors there would be. Mr. Johnson said there would be one near driveway side of the building. Mr. Costanzo asked what the proposed height was and it was stated to be 16 feet. Ms. McIlhinney asked if the building would be heated. Mr. Johnson stated that he hadn t crossed that bridge yet but most likely it will. Dr. Hofstein asked if there would be any meetings held in the building and Mr. Johnson said there would not. Dr. Hofstein asked if we could make a list of what will be in the resolution. Mr. Suttles stated the building would have no commercial use; that it would have electrical but no plumbing and only be used for storage and recreation. Mr. Book added personal recreation. Ms. McIlhinney added there would be no renting to groups. Dr. Hofstein stated it would not be a place for public meeting or gatherings. Mr. Maher makes motion for approval that it be used for storage, personal recreation, electric, no plumbing. Dr. Hofstein reiterated there will be no meetings or gatherings other than family. Mr. Suttles stated no meetings other than family or for personal reasons is a slippery slope. Mr. Maher states personal use is okay, if they have a family party they can use it. Dr. Hofstein said that if Mr. Johnson sells that property, that the building could come back and be used for a school or house of worship. Mr. Gertner stated if the board is so inclined, you are better to be specific than not or you will run into issues with Right of Assembly. So it should be articulated for that reason, that it should not be utilized as a school or house of worship. Dr. Hofstein said he was okay with that. Motion to approve made by MAHER/Suttles. Yes: Book, Maher, McIlhinney, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo No: Burrows 3. Edward Rovi - BLOCK : LOT: 82 ZONE:R CEDAR SWAMP RD. (Edward Rovi, residing at 353 Cedar Swamp Road, Jackson, NJ was sworn.) Mr. Costanzo asked the applicant to describe the nature of the application. Mr. Rovi said he was looking to place a 25x40, 12 foot garage made of metal and steel on the property for storage. Mr. Costanzo asked if there would be any utilities and the applicant said maybe electric and gas. Mr. Costanzo asked if there would be any commercial use or storage and the applicant stated it would be for personal use, working on his cars. Mr. Costanzo asked what material the foundation would be and Mr. Rovi replied concrete. Mr. Costanzo asked for further description and the applicant stated it would be a single bay door with access to the side and back. Mr. Book asked if he could help him see the drawing better. Mr. Rovi said he would be changing it. That he was confused when he did the drawing and that it would be 20 wide from the side property line. Mr. Book asked if he planned to put it on the setback line and Mr. Rovi replied yes. Mr. Hill stated that the applicant isn t here for a setback. He is here for undersized lot. Open public forum Close public forum Dr. Hofstein made a motion to approve and would like included in the resolution it will be for personal use, not commercial use, that it can have electric and cannot be used for either a school or a house of worship Page 3 of 11

4 Motion to approve made by HOFFSTEIN/Suttles Yes: Book, Burrows, Maher, McIlhinney, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo 4. Steven Byrnes BLOCK : LOT: 37 - ZONE:R-15-2 NEW YORK CT. (Steven Byrnes, residing at 2 New York Ct., Jackson, NJ was sworn.) Mr. Costanzo asks the applicant what his intent was. Mr. Byrnes stated there are two sheds on the property he is seeking a variance for. He is in the process of selling the house. He failed the CCO because the shed is too close to the property lines. His garage is only a half of a garage and he really needs the storage space. Mr. Costanzo asked how long they ve been there. Mr. Byrnes stated the big shed was there when he bought the house, about years, and the smaller shed about 6-7 years. Mr. Costanzo asked if the sheds butt up to the property line and if there is room to maintain growth. Mr. Byrnes said there is 1-2 feet. Mr. Costanzo asked if there were any utilities running through the shed and Mr. Byrnes said no, they are just storage sheds. Open public forum Close public forum Mr. Suttles states that it is a pre-existing condition and that he has no issues with it. Motion to approve made by SUTTLES/Hofstein Yes: Book, Burrows, Maher, McIlhinney, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo. 5. Greentree at Jackson LLC - BLOCK: 4717/ LOT: 5/ ZONE:HC/PRC N. COUNTY LINE ROAD AND KINGSTON DRIVE (Continued testimony from the June 17, 2015 meeting.) Mr. Salvatore Alfieri, Esq., attorney for the applicant, explains this is a D Variance, Bulk Variance and Site Plan Approval for an application for two medical office buildings to be constructed at 387 N. County Line Road and Kingston Drive. (Applicant s professionals were sworn and accepted by the Board: Jim Mithkowski, Vice-President, Centrastate; Emmanuel Obiova, Architect; Scott Kennel, Traffic Engineer; Tim Lurie, PP, PE.) Mr. Mithkowski described the uses for the proposed buildings explaining that the first level would be an urgent care/walk-in facility with X-ray services that would operate 7 days a week. Next door there would be a primary care office, Family Practice of Centrastate, which would be located there. The second floor would be a specialist time share arrangement for physicians to get familiar with the town before they move into the community and open a practice. Next to that on the same floor would be physical therapy and out-patient lab services. Mr. Alfieri asked him to describe the hours of operation, expected average of patients and number of employees. Mr. Mithkowski explained the hours of operation for the urgent care center would be Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 8:00 pm and Saturday and Sunday from approximately 9:00 am to 5:00 pm seeing approximately patients per day on average. Mr. Costanzo asked how he arrived at that number of patients per day, and he explained that it was typical of the amount of patients that urgent care facilities typically see once they start to ramp up. The primary care office would average about 1-2 patients per hour. The urgent care center would have roughly 7 full-time employees. The primary care office would be open approximately 9:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday, depending on when the last scheduled patient was completed. He added the Saturday hours would be roughly 8:00 am to 12:00 pm. Mr. Mithkowski added that the rehab and lab would be open roughly 9:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and would have approximately 3 full-time employees. Mr. Mithkowski stated that the timeshare practice hours would be open typically Monday through Friday from 9:00 to 5:00 seeing roughly 15 patients per day, 2 per hour, and would have approximately 7 full-time employees. Mr. Alfieri asked him if there were other similar facilities in the surrounding areas and Mr. Mithkowski said there were 6 spread out, 1 being in Jackson, 2 in the Freehold area, 1 in Colts Neck, 1 in Monroe and 1 in Hackettstown. Mr. Costanzo asked if the prospective 7 full-time employees at the specialty timeshare facility was an estimate and Mr. Mithkowski stated that it would depend on how many physicians would be leasing the timeshare. Mr. Costanzo asked what the full capacity would be. Mr. Mithkowski stated that 2 full-time physicians could be there at the same time. Mr. Costanzo asked if they would have their own staff and Mr. Mithkowski said they would, and it would probably be a medical assistant and a receptionist. Page 4 of 11

5 Mr. Alfieri asked if it was correct that the doctors aren t on site for all the hours and Mr. Mithkowski explained that they usually come in shifts, wither an am or pm session, and that some have offices in neighboring counties and they lease to temporary assess how they would fit into a community. Mr. Costanzo asked the Board if they had any questions. Mr. Book asked about the prior resolution, stating there was a restaurant application and asked if this was a contract purchase, and Mr. Mithkowski stated that Centrastate doesn t own the property and would be a tenant. Mr. Burrows asked if Mr. Mithkowski could elaborate on how they would differentiate between the private practice and the urgent care and how the public would know the difference. Mr. Mithkowski stated it would be advertised as such. The urgent care would handle scrapes, cuts, emergency type injuries. Mr. Burrows asked about broken bones and Mr. Mithkowski said possibly, but would be moved to Centrastate Medical Center depending on the level of emergency. He then asked if there would be any signage that said emergency and Mr. Mithkowski said no. Dr. Hofstein asked if the urgent care would take walk-ins and it was stated that they would, and that the family practice next door would be more like a primary care and would work on an appointment basis. He further asked if Centrastate doesn t own the property then who does. Mr. Alfieri stated that Greentree is real estate company that will own both buildings and that they are leasing it to Centrastate. He added that they would be willing to abide by the same hours for the second building, although there are currently no tenants signed up. (No further questions of Mr. Mithkowski from the Board.) Mr. Alfieri introduced the next witness. Tim Lurie, P.P., P.E. Mr. Gertner marked the site plan/landscaping plan as A-1, and a similar exhibit showing a different scale incorporating more of the surrounding area as A-2. Mr. Lurie explained that the current site plan is the same that was submitted and approved by the Board when it was Charlie Browns and an office building. On same site they are proposing a two-story medical office on Lot 5 measuring 11,631 sq. feet. In the rear of the property on Lot 1.02 they are proposing an additional medical office building measuring 24,436 sq. feet, and that the circulation will remain unchanged from the previous site plan approval. There is an entrance onto North County Line Road and an entrance off of Kingston Drive aligning with the shopping center to the east of the property. He further stated that they will provide landscaping around the perimeter of the project and have an established wetlands LOI and buffer surrounding the property to the west and to the south. The parking is 1 space per 200 square feet parking, and combined they are providing 185 spaces where183 are required. In addition, the site is graded into a storm water infiltration system and further goes into a basin located at the southern portion of Kingston Drive. Mr. Lurie stated they will provide lighting on the property and landscaping to shield from the Malvern School side and blend in. He also stated there would be a dumpster location for each facility, one in the rear of the proposed two-story building on Lot 5, approximately 10x20 feet in size, and in addition a 15x15 dumpster located on the side portion of the proposed three-story building. Mr. Lurie references Page 4 of the Remington Vernick letter dated July 30, 2015 which discusses zoning. The proposed medical building on Lot 5 is located in a Highway Commercial Zone. Lot 1.02, the zone line runs in a combination where to the south it is PRC and to the north it is Highway Commercial. Mr. Lurie said that they are requesting a variance for the minimum side yard setback to accommodate the dumpster. Off-street parking, 60 spaces are required and 50 spaces are proposed. Mr. Lurie said they will provide cross access to allow for further parking and added the setback to right of way conforms. He described that the architect would speak to the signage, and that they currently have a ground sign along County Line Road and Kingston Road. It conforms to ordinance and architect will testify further. Mr. Lurie stated the applicant is requesting a waiver for the internal circulation of this project. The applicant is requesting a variance for the loading zone and explained the loading spot for Lot 5 is located in the rear adjacent to the dumpster and there are 6 parking spots to the side of it. He stated that deliveries for both sites are anticipated to be low impact such as Fed Ex, US Post Office, UPS and the demand for loading zone is not there so they are asking for a waiver for the loading zone. Mr. Lurie said that garbage will be private and can be scheduled at off-peak hours. The building on Lot 1.02 does not have a loading zone because of the small scale deliveries, as well. Dr. Hofstein asked how bulk medical supplies would be delivered, such as towels, bulk gloves and table covers. Mr. Lurie stated that deliveries are all box trucks they have the area in front deliveries will be less intense at the office building. Dr. Hofstein asked how medical and infectious waste would be stored. Mr. Mithkowski stated that they use a company called Stericycle, and any medical waste is separated, secured and picked up in secure boxes and loaded onto a box truck or van. Dr. Hofstein asked if it would be secure and Mr. Mithkowski stated it would. Mr. Maher asked Mr. Lurie if the medical office deliveries would be different than Centrastate, and if that was the reason they were requesting a waiver, and Mr. Lurie stated he believed they would be similar, and that they provide a loading area in the rear because of circulation, so that trucks can stop and go on their way. Mr. Maher asked if there will be a designated spot for that, and Mr. Lurie explained there was not a spot shown, but that there are three handicapped spots in the front. Mr. Costanzo said if they did dedicate loading for the three-story building, they would lose parking, and Mr. Lurie concurred. Page 5 of 11

6 Mr. Lurie addressed the landscaping and buffers and waivers requested along with a waiver for relief of the parking islands. Mr. Lurie was asked to address the Dewberry Letter of Mr. Hill said the plan is generally consistent with what board approved in the middle of 2000 for a restaurant and office. He stated the plans have been revised and developed to meet today s standards and the applicant has addressed most of the comments in the letter. There are minor comments remaining. We agree with all responses and submissions. Mr. Hill pointed out the site has all required environmental permits in place and they are abiding by those. Not proposing any additional tree clearing than was originally approved. Mr. Hill asked if this project is being developed as one or phased. Mr. Alfieri said it would be phased. Mr. Hill stated that they have no plans for a phase plan and would need to see one. Mr. Hill added that overall the plans were revised to address comments. Mr. Lurie addressed the variances and waivers. He further stated that in accordance with MLUL it meets both the positive and criteria. He stated that the medical offices provide for a need in Jackson. Mr. Lurie explained that utilities are existing on site. He stated as a result of this design, they are bounded by wetlands and allow the best possible design for this site. He also stated that they have provided storm water management plan with infiltration back into the ground and regional basins, and it has been approved by the DEP. Variance will not have negative impact in and around site. Mr. Alfieri explained that the proposed medical offices were permitted in the zone and would have to be made available to the residents in the zone, and Mr. Lurie concurred. Dr. Hofstein asked how much of the project would be in the PRC zone and would it be the building or just parking. Mr. Lurie referred to exhibit A-1 and the line reflecting the zone. He replied that the whole building is in the HPC zone and a small area is located in the PRC zone. Dr. Hofstein asked if it was just some parking spots and Mr. Lurie replied yes. Mr. Book inquired if the intent of the use of the property would be medical offices for doctors, dentists, optometrists, etc. and Mr. Lurie responded that it was. Mr. Alfieri stated that that would conclude the Planning and Engineering testimony. Mr. Costanzo called for a five-minute recess at 8:30 pm. (The meeting was called back to order at 8:40 pm.) Mr. Peters references his report of He indicated that the previous plan was approved for a different intensity. He stated in terms of the use variance testimony, they ve indicated the HC zone handles most of property, and there s a residential piece near Kingston that requires a use variance, and that states he doesn t take and exception in terms of the use of the property. He further states that this section of County Line Road has been developed sporadically over the last years. He further states a proposed shopping center near South Knolls ended up with houses being built in its place. He stated that as we get to these infill projects, what the market will bear has changed from the original zones and he would like the Board members to keep that in mind. He feels the applicant presented a proposal that for the most part fits with the zone. He further stated that with regard to the landscaping buffer, he feels this is portion of the project closest to residential and feels they can reconsider the type and amount of landscaping and feels they did a better job of planting that short area around the parking lot. Mr. Peters stated they need to present testimony with regards to signage. Mr. Costanzo asked Mr. Alfieri if he would address the buffer relief and he posed the question to Mr. Lurie asking if he would be willing to work with the board professionals until they were satisfied and me Lurie replied absolutely. Mr. Gertner asked Mr. Peters what would he would be satisfied with in regards to the buffer. Mr. Peters suggested that perhaps in the area of the 25-foot buffer there could also be a single row of evergreen material. In the area closest to parking lot he would like to see an evergreen wall, perhaps a double row of evergreens in staggered heights to create more of a visual buffer. Mr. Costanzo asked if Mr. Peters had any concerns about the school and he replied that the school is not a residential use and is they are not required to landscape. We could ask the applicant to get in contact with the Malvern School and coordinate so the landscaping blends in, but he was not sure that there is a requirement in the ordinance in terms of development. Mr. Costanzo asked if there were any comments regarding the fence and Mr. Hill replied that it was their report that addressed the fence. Mr. Hill stated that they have it fenced in already and thinks the revised plan addresses the additional issues. Mr. Alfieri asked if there was adequate width to plant the double row of evergreens in the requested area and Mr. Lurie responded that the double row would be in one area off of Kingston Drive where the property is higher. Mr. Hill added that their property is about 5 feet higher and the average person will be curb height or lower. He added that it doesn t have to be 2 staggered rows, but filled in, and that there s adequate room. Mr. Alfieri introduced the applicant s third witness, Mr. Emmanuel Obiova of ECO Architects. Architectural rendering of the two-story building was marked as Exhibit A-3. Mr. Obiova describes the exhibit as a front rendering of the Centrastate building stating the building is 27 foot 3 inches at its main height and has a stucco finish with an accent of limestone along with brick accents over the windows, corners and entrance where it extends higher. He states that the applicant is proposing 4 signs, and the front of the building has one sign on the left corner for the family practice on first floor. The center sign has the Centrastate logo and right is for the immediate care walk-in. Page 6 of 11

7 Mr. Costanzo asked the architect if he could be more descriptive on the signs. Mr. Obiova replied that there would be lettering with a logo affixed to the building and have no lights. Mr. Costanzo followed up asking if there would be any illumination and Mr. Obiova replied there would not. Architectural rendering of the three-story building was marked as Exhibit A-4. Mr. Obiova made a clarification stating the immediate care walk in sigh would be lit. Mr. Costanzo asked if the immediate care sign measured 38 square feet and asked if it was a stand-alone sign with lettering or if it was framed in cabinet and Mr. Obiova explained it was stand-alone, channel box lettering with logo as shown in the rendering. Mr. Marano asked how it would be lit and Mr. Obiova said he believed it would be rear lit. Mr. Obiova continued on with testimony stating that rendering A-4 shows the three-story building and explained that it has a similar design to the front building with the same accents, but with canopies. He testified it would be 34 feet in height and has accent parapets that are higher and has a Centrastate 42 square foot sign in middle. Mr. Hill asked if the HVAC equipment is all mounted on the roof and would be concealed behind the parapets and Mr. Obiova replied that it was and would not be visible from the street. Ms. McIlhinney asked if there would be lighting on the signage. Mr. Obiova explained that he was mistaken, and that the channel lettering will be backlit, but the rest of the signs would not be lit. Ms. McIlhinney questioned if the facility would be open until 7:00 pm when it s dark, how are people going to see the facility? Mr. Obiova said there would be freestanding lit signs. Dr. Hofstein asked if the lit sign would be on for 24-hours or would it be turned off at 8 so it doesn t interfere with the surrounding properties. Mr. Alfieri stated that the applicant could put it on a timer and have it turn off at 9:00 pm. There were no further questions of Mr. Obiova. Mr. Alfieri introduced the applicant s fourth and final witness, Mr. Scott Kennel of McDonough and Rea Associates. Mr. Kennel stated that he conducted a traffic analysis and traffic counts on County Line Road in June of 2015 while schools were still in session, and the traffic volumes on County Line Road during the am peak hours, approximately 730 vehicles, and for the pm approximately 1030 vehicles both eastbound and westbound. The counts also included Kingston Drive where the am peak hours were 60 vehicles and 90 during the pm. The traffic estimates were proposed, it was determined the two buildings would generate approximately 90 peak hour trips and 130 during the pm. The traffic associated with this proposal would be during the daytime hours rather than night. Mr. Kennel stated it was determined the site access at the morning peak hour would operate at A level of service. During the pm it would be an A-B threshold meaning approximately11 seconds per vehicle. Overall it will have a de minimis impact on Kingston Drive and County Line Road. With regard to parking, Mr. Kennel stated there were 183 spaces required and the applicant is proposing 185, meeting and exceeding the minimum parking requirement. He further testified that given the evaluation of this development, it will have a minimal impact on both roads. Mr. Alfieri asked if the applicant eliminates parking spaces to provide a loading zone, could it be done and where? Mr. Kennel replied that in the area of the trash enclosure along the northern side, the 2 spaces closest to dumpster would adequately accommodate UPS, Fed Ex and other box truck vehicles. Mr. Alfieri asked how we would designate it as loading zone and Mr. Kennel replied that they would use striping and signage. Mr. Miskovich referenced the August 4, 2015 traffic report stating that he was in general agreement that everything he says is correct and that what this proposal will generate vs the prior approval is insignificant. He further stated that there should be testimony or clarification of whether the uses will be associated and if they are going to be associated, the relationship of the uses. Mr. Miskovich testified that there are also minor site plan issues that can be discussed later. Mr. Costanzo said that he was concerned with circulation and asked if a 25 feet width for a travel lane is sufficient. Mr. Miskovich asked if the applicant could put better crosswalk and pedestrian signs and that they are all marked properly. He said there is no continuity from either building over to Kingston Drive and no continuity of sidewalk from the shopping center to the site. He suggested that the sidewalks should be brought down and they should provide a sidewalk in the area of the medical office building so you can get to a sidewalk and make the connection to get to the shopping center. Mr. Kennel stated they would agree to those recommendations. Mr. Maher asked if there is a deed restriction that these buildings can be sold separately. Mr. Alfieri stated it would run with the land, not ownership, and it was typical to have to be approved by the township. Mr. Hill asked if there will be maintenance of storm water and Mr. Alfieri stated there would. Mr. Maher asked for comparable examples of the cross-access easement and Mr. Alfieri said there weren t any in this area. Mr. Gertner stated that the Quick Check had cross-access easement. Mr. Hill added that the bank and funeral home did as well. Mr. Gertner said they would be required to provide that in the developer s agreement. Mr. Costanzo asked if the width for the loading zone in the rear of the buildings was sufficient and whether it was an appropriate location for a loading zone. Page 7 of 11

8 Mr. Miskovich stated that since vehicles enter from County Line Road they d have to pull in and back out and that it was questionable how that would be used by customers at the same time. It s a matter of the size of the trucks. Mr. Alfieri states there are no further witnesses. Open public forum David Fiorito, 65 Kingston Drive. Mr. Fiorito explains he lives in a residential community next to wetlands and is retired. He said that People don t realize there is a gate. If someone is in the crosswalk, it will be dangerous because we are coming around a bend at 25 mph. If the gate goes up and we go out, it will be dangerous. He further stated that we have trash pick-ups in the shopping center, at Burger King and Malvern School and if they come in on Kingston it will add more traffic. According to June records there was not a sufficient system on their site and they would have to come into ours. It goes into our property and into a pond at the end of Kingston Drive. Construction would cause a close of the street and we couldn t get out of the gate. He says he is not sure why they didn t go from east to west and only bought the 1 acre. He said that according to the records, if there are only 45 patients a day he doesn t know why they need 150 parking spaces. He further stated that the architect didn t address the medical building about signage lighting and he is concerned about lighting. He stated that the building is high and when the leaves are off the trees, we will have too much light. Mr. Alfieri stated that as for the building in the back, the sign will not be lit and there would be no building mounted lights or signs. He further states that the applicant would like all signs on the front building to be back lit and he would like to amend the prior testimony and propose back lighting for all front signs. Mr. Suttles asked what direction those signs would face and Mr. Alfieri said three face County Line Road, west, and none will face residents. Mr. Lurie stated that as for the storm water management it would be collected into a central recharge system on Lot 1.02 at the other end of Kingston Drive. Mr. Hill stated that the applicant is seeking to tie into a system that was designed to handle this and that the system being designed and proposed meets today s standards exceeding the early 2000s. Mr. Fiorito said that his concern is that water will go onto our property and go into a pond, and asked what happens to the pond if it s too much rain. Mr. Hill clarified that this site, not only this parcel, but all across the street was designed to accommodate all these properties and that s all designed to flow to the pond. There s additional runoff as compared to its current grass/wooded condition and it is an added level of protection and will be able to handle it. Mr. Fiorito asked about the storm water management report. Mr. Hill explained that it was his report and that they asked the applicant to investigate and there are no structural issues to what s previously installed so it s in accordance with today s standards. Mr. Lurie addressed the lighting saying there is parking lot LED lighting at a level of 18 feet high and there will be no spillage of light onto residential properties. Russel Palumbo, Mr. Palumbo said that people that go to the school from the west pull right into the school, but if they are coming from the east, County Line or Harmony Roads, what they do is come down and cut into the shopping center to cut across to the school. With all the people coming here it will create a hazard going through the shopping center into this site. He feels it would help if the applicant could make the access to Kingston Drive one-way and don t let people go in. Regarding parking, Mr. Palumbo said that anybody who goes to a medical facility has trouble parking and they park on street and all over. They are going to be parking in the shopping center and walking across, and they are not going to be athletic and healthy, but people with problems. He feels there is going to be more traffic and that the site should be one way. Mr. Costanzo asked what the speed limit is on Kingston Drive and Mr. Palumbo said actually. Dr. Hofstein stated that a lot of what the last gentleman spoke about deals with enforcement, and that you would have to go to the town about the one-way and the police about people cutting through the shopping center. Michael Bounantino, 35 Harbors Way Mr. Bounantino stated that he was on the Board of Trustees. He said that the homeowners of Four Seasons are responsible to pay money to maintain it and have it kept up and that everyone is getting a free ride in South Knolls, as well as the applicant. He said that South Knolls owns Kingston Drive be we pave, we seal, we plow and nobody gives us money. He went on to say the shopping center has been there and they wait for us to take care of the road, and we d like to petition the town to take it over. Mr. Costanzo recommended that he approach a councilman. Mr. Book asked if he had read about the easement. Mr. Buonantino said that there have been a lot of conversations about landscaping and he appreciates that, and that prior to this being owned they wanted to put in 12 pine trees. Four months later 7 are dead, and he hopes they will be a better neighbor and they get weeds that grow 5 feet high. Patricia Day, 53 Kingston Drive Page 8 of 11

9 Ms. Day asked how many patients they would expect and what the impact would be. She stated that she worked in medical buildings and some of the hospitals determine how many patients a physician has to see in an hour and if they don t comply, they can t practice there. She is concerned if a physician owns a practice; they may be putting patients in for 7 minutes, so you ve got 100 going through, and that s not counting urgent, and the two family practices there. A couple of years from now when it s busy it could be a lot of people and she d like the Board to take that into consideration. Richard DiRosa, 61 Kingston Drive Mr. DiRosa said that it s important to note that Kingston Drive has families on it. He feels the space seems cramped. He feels there should be more consideration for a retirement community and now there will be a 24,000 sq. foot monster next to us. I ll ask the same question as a previous application that was here about a landscaping company; why this location? If someone doesn t have a remote for the gate, traffic backs up. You can t move. You have outgoing traffic, and even with a 25 mph speed limit it will be a hazard and the site does not make sense. Mr. DiRosa said there is plenty of empty space; why this location? Why a 24,000 square feet, three-floor building? It doesn t make sense. He said that he escaped New York to get away from that. Close public forum Mr. Alfieri stated that in terms of zoning, this is a permitted use and the applicant has presented sufficient evidence to warrant approval. Mr. Costanzo calls for questions from the Board. Mr. Maher said that these buildings are basically in the same location where Charlie Browns was. Mr. Book asked the Board traffic engineer if the potential flow of 1 patient every 7 minutes, was that taken into consideration or does it make a difference and Mr. Miskovich said it is hard to put X number of patients and traffic because it s dynamic and always changing so you have to look at it on an average. If I were to take the testimony of 40-45, even if there was 50 percent overlap they are still meeting the number of parking spaces. They comply. Mr. Suttles states that we have a building defined as office building and that it s a good idea to restrict it as a non-retail use because if you have a store it will increase traffic as opposed to an office building. Mr. Alfieri stated that no retail is proposed on the site; that it is purely office and they have no objection to stipulating so. Dr. Hofstein asked if the applicant would put it in a resolution and Mr. Alfieri said that s correct. Dr. Hofstein made a motion to approve with the following: landscaping, additional landscaping along border with South Knoll as stated by professionals. The lit signs will be turned off at 8:00 pm on the front building. Mr. Alfieri stated that he suggested 9:00 pm and there would be no lights on the back building. Dr. Hofstein stated that the loading zone would be replacing two parking spots near the dumpster and that would bring the parking to 183 now. Sidewalks will be placed per testimony of traffic engineer with crosswalks saying watch out for pedestrians and signs. Cross access for parking easement done by counsel and storm water easement coincides previously approved by past application. Mr. Gertner added pursuant to development of all insote completed in phase one Mr. Alfieri added no retail. Motion to approve made by SUTTLES /McIlhinney. Yes: Book, Burrows, Maher, McIlhinney, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo 6. Donald Cove (use variance 3101) BLOCK:18204 LOT: 10 ZONE: RD 1383 WEST VETERANS HWY (Donald Cove, residing at 1385 West Veterans Highway, Jackson, NJ was sworn.) Mr. Cove states that he repaired his house that was damaged by fire and put an addition on it. Mr. Costanzo asked him to describe it further. Mr. Cove said it s traditionally going to be a mother-daughter style home. Mr. Costanzo asked if the new addition will be attached to the existing home and Mr. Cove said yes. Mr. Costanzo asked what the square footage of the existing structure was and Mr. Cove stated he did not have that number. Mr. Costanzo asked what the square footage of the addition would be and Mr. Cove said it was on the drawings. He further stated that when he bought the property it was advertised as a rental income or mother daughter and he bought it with the idea of using the rental to supplement to pay the mortgage. Mr. Peters asked if 1385 was currently rented, and Mr. Cove replied that 1385 is where he lives with his son but 1383 was rented to a friend and then his sister. Mr. Peters asked if that was what was damaged and had plans to renovate and Mr. Cove said yes. Mr. Peters asked about the barn behind 1383 and if he could explain it to the Board. Mr. Cove stated it was a big barn basically like a two-car garage. When asked about the sheds on the site, Mr. Cove said that one had motorcycles Page 9 of 11

10 stored in it and the other shed had garden tools, and another shed was rented to someone who was renting the other house. Mr. Peters explained that because it is a residential site, we want to make sure nobody runs a business out of the shed and all the uses on the property were residential. He asked if when he bought the property, whether two houses existed and Mr. Cove said yes. Mr. Peters explained to the Board that it was an expansion of a non-conforming lot. MLUL allows a certificate of nonconformance and we have a specific ordinance that says on a single family property you can t have more than one use. Here we have one property with more than one use, of which the applicant has owned for a period of time. Mr. Peters asked if there were any additions to the property and Mr. Cove replied that no, he did not. He further stated he bought the property and has a CO. Mr. Peters stated that everything he has to date is legit, and while he has a hardship it seems preexisting. Mr. Gertner asked if Mr. Cove intended to add to 1383 and he responded that yes, for himself and his son. Mr. Gertner said that it would then become three units and Mr. Cove concurred. Mr. Gertner added that a motherdaughter has separate kitchen facilities. If you turn that into a unit for 2 separate entities, two units, you re going from single-family for 1383 and we need to be specific on what you re going to do. Mr. Cove stated that he wants his son to have his own kitchen because he has a girlfriend and he wants him to learn how to be a man and do what he s got to do. Mr. Peters said that his concern is that when it s a mother-daughter there s access to each house. When you have a multi-family it s separate entrances and it s a tougher variance to turn a single-family into multi-family, and years from now when you sell it you aren t getting permission to have two units in 1383 because it s supposed to be a mother-daughter. Mr. Peters further stated that if the Board was to act favorably, they would probably require you to file a deed so it says it s not two separate units, it s a mother-daughter. We want to make a clear record of what you are doing Mr. Costanzo stated that he thinks Mr. Cove needs to review further, given the information he s been given, and come back with a better plan so the Board can see sizes and dimensions. Mr. Peters asked Mr. Cove if he had architectural plan with the sizes of what he s proposing and Mr. Cove stated that he had a friend do that. Mr. Peters suggested that Mr. Cove review them and bring that to a future meeting. Mr. Costanzo felt that the application should be carried, allows Mr. Cove to gather the information and have the feedback that s required. Mr. Gertner added that the application exacerbates a preexisting, non-conforming use and that it was adding to the intensity of existing non-conforming by creating 3 separate dwellings. Mr. Suttles said that he would like to see a floor plan and Mr. Costanzo agreed. Mr. Costanzo suggested to carry the application to October 7 to gather additional information. Mr. Gertner added that no further no further notice would be necessary and asked Mr. Cove to waive time requirements. Mr. Cove agreed. Application carried to October 7, 2015; no further notice required and a waiver was given for time requirements. 7. Evan & Kirsten Hill BLOCK: 3601 LOT:61 ZONE:R BURKE ROAD (Evan Hill, residing at 446 Burke Road, was sworn) Mr. Hill stated he was here to obtain a variance for a rear yard setback for a 30X48 concrete slab pole barn or detached garage with a height of 24 feet, propane tank for heating with the main purpose being storage for vehicles. Mr. Hill further testified there would be no commercial activities. Mr. Costanzo asked if there would be meetings or religious gatherings on the premises and Mr. Hill replied there would not. Mr. Burrows asked what kind of vehicles would be stored and Mr. Hill replied that it would be for restoring a Jeep scrambler by spring and some gardening equipment and vehicles. Mr. Burrows asked if it was existing gravel and Mr. Hill replied that it was. Open Public Forum Close Public Forum Motion made to approve by BURROWS/Hofstein Yes: Book, Burrows, Maher, McIlhinney, Suttles, Hofstein, Costanzo Page 10 of 11

11 Motion to adjourn by Mr. Costanzo at 10:12 pm All in favor Meeting was adjourned at 10:12 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Danielle Golba Board Recording Secretary Page 11 of 11