GLEN ROCK PLANNING BOARD Minutes of the April 5, 2018 Meeting 7:30 PM

Transcription

1 7:30 PM In attendance: Robert VanLangen, Chairman, Harold Knapp, Mayor Bruce Packer, Councilwoman Kristine Morieko, Greg Toro, Ken Hrasdzira, R. Scott King and John Thielke. Also in attendance were Kathryn Walsh, Esq., Board Attorney, Robert Nash, P.E., Borough Engineer, and Ed Snieckus, P.P., Borough Planner The Board Secretary called the Roll and read the Sunshine Law. Block 188, Lot Harristown Road Applicant: SS Glen Rock, LLC Applicant seeks preliminary and final site plan approval for construction of a self-storage building and any variances and waivers that are required in connection with this application. Ms. Walsh reminded the Board that Mr. Gianetti, attorney for MSO, one of the objectors, wished to enter into evidence at the last meeting binders of police reports from various self-storage facilities throughout New Jersey. Upon discussion with applicant s attorney and objector s attorney, Ms. Walsh is recommending that the Board allow submission of this evidence and the Board can determine if they think it is relevant to this application. Mr. Gianetti called Mr. Steck to testify about the police reports. Mr. Steck had condensed the information provided in the binders in a spreadsheet. He stated that nine towns were included. Mr. Steck stated he will be addressing the report from a planning perspective only. Mr. Steck stated that the applicant called this a great ratable. However, a ratable must take into consideration the drain on municipal services. Mr. Steck stated that, in his experience, self-storage facilities generate a lot of police calls. Storage units have valuable items in them- and thieves know this. With 899 units, this facility will be a target-rich environment. Ms. Walsh requested that Mr. Steck limit his testimony to the evidence presented. Mr. Steck reviewed the data location by location. He stated the bigger the facility, the more crime it will generate. Upon cross examination, Mr. Steck stated he was not a police officer or criminologist. He is testifying as a planner.

2 Pg. 2 of 5 Mr. Steck and Mr. D Arminio went back and forth discussing the numbers for each facility. They also discussed the nature of the crimes, which include parking and traffic violations. Mr. Steck reviewed the report that was provided concerning the two existing facilities in Glen Rock Cube Smart and Extra Space. Mr. D Arminio quoted the report in saying in the time Extra Space has operated, there have been no major issues. In addition, regarding Cube Smart, there have been no issues of concern to date. Mr. D Arminio stated that the letter from the Police Chief ended with I have no concerns to raise with regard to this current application before the Planning Board. Mr. Kevin Bulger, Director of Planning and Development for Petrillo Architects, was called to testify. He had been previously sworn. Mr. Bulger was accepted as an expert in the field of planning and landscape architecture. Mr. Bulger commented on the police reports from other towns. He stated that, in summary, the crime in a self-storage unit is very dependent on its location. If it is in a high crime area, it will have higher than normal police activity. If it is in a low crime area, it will have lower than normal crime activity. Mr. Bulger opined that the proposed building only encompasses about 64 % of the permitted volume. He stated if this were a 3-story office building, instead of a 3 story self-storage, it would be approximately 7 taller because of the floor to ceiling heights would be higher than a self-storage. He stated that the building footprint would work and fit perfectly within the existing site conditions regarding site grading, parking and circulation. Mr. Auciello stated that he stands by his previous testimony. Upon review of Ms. Talley s testimony, Mr. Auciello reminded the Board that the use is permitted and should not be a subject of debate. MS. Talley also objected to the volume of the building, but previous testimony stated that a warehouse could be building which has a much larger volume. He reminded the Board that the applicant has returned to the Board with a smaller building with less volume than the previous application. Ms. Winn, attorney for the owners of 208 Harristown Road gave her summation. She stated she did not work with the other objector and she would like to focus on those things important to her client. The use is a permitted one. A certain amount of parking, based on the use, is required. The applicant proposes to land bank many of the required parking spaces to be used if needed. In the meantime, it will be green space. As a Board, Ms. Winn opined, they can put reasonable requirements for security.

3 Pg. 3 of 5 Ms. Winn stated that a fence height variance is being requested, for a 6 fence where 4 is permitted. Testimony was given that a 6 fence improves security, so it is reasonable to approve that variance. She stated the same is not true for the building/structure variance requested. Ms. Winn opined that the Board s decision should be based on the existing Master Plan, zone plan and existing ordinance. She said the Board should consider the magnitude of the variance, and the fact that the greater the variance, the more you deviate from the zone plan. Mr. Gianetti gave his summation. He reminded the Board he is the attorney for MSO, the 2-story building next to the subject property. He stated that MSO dos not want to be here, but is very concerned how the size of the building and the number of proposed storage units will affect their property. He reminded the Board that the variance requested is 4 times what is permitted in the zone. Mr. Gianetti stated that no C-2 variance should be granted just for the benefit of the applicant. The granting of the variance must benefit the community in that it represents a better zoning alternative. He questioned the need for additional self-storage facilities in Glen Rock. He stated that there is no reason it couldn t be a smaller building. Mr. Gianetti stated that the applicant talks about the desirable visual environment. He disagrees with that as many of the neighboring property owners have argued they think the building looks ugly. He stated that the wall next to MSO is the highest wall and looms over the MSO building. Mr. Gianetti agreed with Ms. Winn that if the variance was minimally over the permitted 35%, it wouldn t be so bad, but that the variance requested is so extensive, it should be denied. Mr. Gianetti thanked the Board for their time and summed up by stating that the applicant had not met their burden of proof and the application should be denied. Mr. D Arminio gave his summation. He stated that the Board let the applicant know that the building was too large. In response, the applicant came back with a building smaller in height, volume and number of stories. They also sank the building so it now has one of the floors underground. The resulting building is one that appears to be 3 stories while viewing it from Harristown Road. Architectural elements have been added and color changes in materials give the look of windows. There is a nice transition in height from the Bank of America building, to our building, and to the MSO building. The size is in keeping in character with the neighborhood. Mr. D Arminio that the specific use of this building can accommodate the variance request.

4 Pg. 4 of 5 Mr. D Arminio opined that there is minimal impact on parking and traffic. The applicant has included property security measures and that there is minimal impact on Municipal services. There are no engineering issues. He stated the only variance request is for a 6 vs. 4 fence. The fence will provide added security and a visual buffer. He stated that the applicant meets all the requirements for height, setback and parking. Mr. D Arminio stated, ultimately, the objectors do not like the use, but the use is permitted. He stated that it meets the planning objective, it is a more efficient use of the land and it s a better zoning alternative. He requests that the Board approve the application. Mr. VanLangen asked if Mr. Nash had any comments. He did not. Mr. Snieckus did, however. He was sworn in by Ms. Walsh. Mr. Snieckus stated that this is not a use variance. The use is permitted. The variance relief requested is just for building/structure coverage and fence height. Mr. Snieckus suggests the Board concentrates on the intensity of the activity, rather than the total size of the building. He wants to remind the Board what size a conforming building could be. Mr. Snieckus did not go through the proofs and the positive and negative criteria, as that has been well covered during the proceedings. Regarding the issue of crime, Mr. Snieckus has a very hard time correlating crime to the building or the number of units. What s more important, he opines, is the correspondence from the Chief of Police regarding the two existing self-storage facilities in Glen Rock. Mr. Snieckus does not believe storm water management will be negatively affected by this application. Mr. Snieckus suggested the Board member ask if the proposal negatively impacts traffic, noise, safety, health, wellbeing or other objectives of the ordinance. Mr. Snieckus asks if the Board members think the visual impact will negatively impact the character of the District. He stated that the amount of activity would not impact the zoning ordinance due to the type of use. Mr. Steck pointed out, and Mr. Snieckus agrees, that the Master Plan should be considered. In a re-examination report, Mr. Snieckus notes The D Industrial district continues to thrive, likely as the result of the governing body amending the zoning ordinance to allow additional uses.

5 Pg. 5 of 5 Mr. Snieckus stated that he believes the proposed landscaping plan is sufficient for the size of the building. Ms. Walsh stated that Mr. Snieckus review was very thorough. She wanted to remind the Board that statements made by the attorneys are not evidence or testimony. Ms. Walsh stated the Board members should review the application, not just the items that need variance relief. She cited several applicable court cases the Board should consider. Mr. VanLangen asked if anyone had any questions or comments before he calls for a motion. No one did. A motion to approve the application was made by Councilwoman Morieko and seconded by Mayor Packer. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: VanLangen, Knapp, Packer, Morieko, Toro, King Hrasdzira The resolution will be memorialized at next month s meeting. Block 254, Lot (in the Borough of Glen Rock) Block 1808, Lot 6.01 (in the Borough of Fair Lawn) 909 Prospect Street Applicant: 909 Glen Rock LLC Applicant seeks minor site plan approval for modifications to existing driveway and parking lot and any variances and waivers that are required in connection with this application. At the request of the applicant, this matter has been postponed to the April 30, 2018 and May 3, 2018 Planning Board meetings. As there was nothing further before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 PM. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Spiller Board Secretary