Chairman Christian Jensen called the Planning Board meeting of May 9, 2002 to order at 8:00 p.m. announcing that this meeting had been duly advertised according the Chapter 231, Open Public Meetings Act. The meeting took place at the Municipal Building in the courtroom. ROLL CALL Chairman Christian Jensen Present Vice-Chairman Ken Wells Present Secretary Edmund Wysocki Present Mayor Joseph Tricarico Absent Committeeman Robert Mack (1) Arrived at 8:15 p.m. Marian Fenwick-Freeman Present Robert Lawton Present William Pugh Present John Gelardi Absent Valerie Chaucer-Levine - Present Lynn Winters Mineo (2) Present Also in attendance were Philip George, Esq., representing the Board, Greg Fodale, Board Engineer, and Lucille Grozinski, C.S.R. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES ACCEPTANCE OF RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES PLANNING BOARD BUSINESS Community Forestry Management Plan Les Alpaugh, a former State Forester and a forestry consultant, gave the Board an overview of the Community Forestry Management Plan draft he prepared for Hillsborough in February of last year. He explained that the Community Forestry Act is a volunteer program whereby, if a community has a plan of action to take care of its municipal trees, and the plan is approved by the State, the town is eligible for a grant to implement the plan. Mr. Alpaugh met with town officials at the invitation of Frank Scarantino to draft a plan to include the goals and objectives of the town, issues that they would like addressed and actions to be taken. Mr. Alpaugh stated that the most important need at this time is to take care of smaller trees now. After comments from Board members and discussion on the focus of the plan, it was agreed that Board members would forward their comments to the Planning Board Clerk by Wednesday, May 15 th. Revisions would be made and then forwarded to Mr. Alpaugh. A motion to approve the draft of the Community Forestry Management Plan was made by Marian Fenwick-Freeman, seconded by Valerie Chaucer-Levine: Roll call: Robert Lawton yes Valerie Chaucer-Levine yes Lynn Winters-Mineo yes Ken Wells yes Ed Wysocki yes Bob Mack yes Bill Pugh no Marian Fenwick-Freeman yes Chairman Jensen yes OCTOBER 5, 2007 1
Nelson s Corner Lighting Chairman Jensen explained that Board attorney, Susan Rubright, has advised the Board that, according to ordinance, an amended site plan is required to be submitted regarding the lighting issue at Nelson s Corner. Chairman moved this item to the Site Plan and Subdivision portion of the meeting. SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORTS BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR Patrick Cerillo, Esq., attorney for the Neshanic Riverside II subdivision, approved in December of 2000, stated that the subject application never received final approval from the Planning Board. It was his understanding that the resolution was for preliminary and final approval. Maps were filed and bonds were posted for driveway improvements. Since all conditions of preliminary approval have been satisfied, Mr. Cerillo asked the Board if this application could be put on the next available Board agenda for final approval. APPLICATIONS Nelson s Corner Lighting Chairman Jensen stated that an amended site plan is required to address the issues of lighting for Nelson s Corner and asked the Board for comments. Mr. Wysocki made a motion to approve the increase in lighting at Nelson s Corner with the condition that an amended site plan be submitted; seconded by Bob Lawton. Roll Call: Ed Wysocki - yes Bob Lawton - yes Marian Fenwick-Freeman - yes Ken Wells - no Valerie Chaucer-Levine - no Bill Pugh - no Chairman Jensen - yes Robert Mack (1) - yes Lynn Winters-Mineo (2) - yes Hillsborough Promenade File #01-PB-23-SIGN Block 182, Lots 49 & 50 Susan DiMaria, Esq., attorney for the Applicant, Charles O Brien, Architect, John Madden, P.P., and Bill Krame, Applicant, appeared. At this point in the meeting, Philip George, acting Board Attorney left the meeting and Eric Bernstein, Esq. appeared, representing the Board. Mr. O Brien reviewed the sign waivers being requested as documented in the Required Sign Waivers table submitted to the Board on March 7, 2002. He asked the Board to take into consideration the size of the center and the location of the buildings from the highway when considering the waivers requested. It should also be noted that the colors for the signs are not depicted in the sign renderings, Hillsborough Promenade Signage and Outparcel Building Approval, dated May 8, 2002. Since the center is located quite a distance from the highway, two (2) eighteen foot pylon signs are being requested and will be OCTOBER 5, 2007 2
located on Route 206, one on either end of the center and one (1) 9 4 pylon sign at Falcon Road. Chairman Jensen asked that a sample sign be put in place for Board members to have a better idea of what is being requested. Mr. Krame stated that he will look into this. Mr. Pugh had concerns about trees that would be removed when Route 206 is widened. Mr. Krame stated that the trees along the highway will be removed; however, additional trees will be planted along the front of the property. Mr. Wells stated that he would like to be involved in the landscaping at the 206 location for the site. John Madden, Jr., P.P. reported on the planning aspects of the sign waivers requested. He stated that signs should vary depending on setting, access conditions, size of center and stores being considered. He asked the Board to focus on the signage manual that works well with the look of the center and scaled to the size of the center. The site is 95 acres and the center is 409,203 sq. ft. consisting of four major tenants and smaller freestanding, nationally recognized businesses. Even though the proposed signage deviates from the sign regulations, Mr. Madden felt that this proposal is totally consistent with the sign manual requirement. From a planning standpoint, the purpose of commercial signage is to communicate with passing motorists through identification, marketing and aesthetics. The five factors important to signs are: 1. Comprehension 2. Distinguishability 3. Expectancy 4. Emphasis (store logos) 5. Credibility. Exhibit A-1 was introduced which was a pictorial display of signs presently in place within the Township. These photographs were also presented to the Board in a smaller version entitled, Photograph Exhibit Hillsborough Promenade Sign Waivers dated May 2002. Exhibit A-2 was a display of pictures taken from various distances along Route 206 with proposed sign locations. Mr. Madden stated that the signs, as presented, are proportionally in proper scale with the size of the center and contribute to the look of the center. Mr. Wysocki made a motion to continue this application to the June 13, 2002 meeting; seconded by Bill Pugh. All members agreed. Bibeau File #01-PB-16-MJ Block 165, Lot 10 Susan DiMaria, Esq., Attorney for the Applicant, and Michael Ford, P.E. appeared. Ms. DiMaria stated that there was a question regarding ownership of the cemetery that is included on the plans for this application. On May 8, 2002, she submitted a letter to the Board along with a copy of a portion of the title policy for the Bibeau property which states that the cemetery is on Lot 12 and the owner is unknown. Plans will be revised accordingly to indicate that the cemetery is not on the Bibeau property. Ms. DiMaria stated that she just discovered that the objectors for the application are represented by an attorney. She asked that the attorney provide a list of the people that he is representing. Lawrence Wohl, Esq. approached the Board and stated that he was the attorney representing the objectors to this application: Natalie & Drew Chafey Louis Fardice 101 Wertsville Road 592 Montgomery Road OCTOBER 5, 2007 3
Patricia Miccolis/Ronald Ash 94 Wertsville Road Gilda Hoffman 594 Montgomery Road Stephanie Hoffman/Les Carter 100 Wertsville Road Attorney Wohl stated that he had an issue which he would like addressed before any testimony is given by any witnesses in this application as to whether or not the Planning Board of Hillsborough has jurisdiction over this application in light of the requirement of the cluster ordinance, Section 77-41 which would only allow clustering if there is a reduced lot size but no increase in lot number. He stated that the original application and the EIS for the conventional plan could not have sustained all the lots proposed. He asked that a Board take a vote on this at this time. Chairman Jensen stated that jurisdiction on the clustering had been previously discussed by the Board and the variance required in this particular application is a C2 variance. Attorney Wohl stated that the only board that can give relief on density is the Zoning Board of Adjustment under Section 40:55D-70 of the MLUL. He felt that there had been no proof in the record of this case thus far. He also referred to Ordinance Section 81-3 which would prohibit the construction of homes in that location. He stated that it is his belief that the Planning Board does not have jurisdiction to hear this application since he felt that this is a density application as opposed to a cluster application, Attorney Bernstein stated that this is not a D variance situation since granting a variance for reduction of minimum lot size does not in and of itself require a D variance. Michael Ford stated that an updated plan was filed on March 21, 2002. He presented three exhibits in support of this revised plan. Exhibit A-1 a conceptual layout of the original plan depicting 8 lots. After discussion with the planner and engineer in April of 2001 and onsite soil testing for the septic systems, it was decided that a less aggressive approach for a total of six lots (five new building lots and the remaining lot with the existing dwelling) would be considered. This conventional layout is depicted in Exhibit A-2. Fully engineered plans for the septic systems, proposed landscaping road design and storm drainage facilities was submitted in August of 2001. This plan was presented to the Environmental Commission and the Planning Board. At that time, the Planning Board suggested an alternate layout with a cluster option. Exhibit A-3 is a rendering of the cluster option and was presented to the Planning Board on December 6, 2001. The plans for the cluster option include five residential lots accessing a cul de sac that abuts Wertsville Road. Approximately 40% of the entire tract or 12.29 acres would be dedicated to the Township for open space. That property encompasses the drainage way along the northerly tract boundary as well as the drainage way that abuts the easterly tract boundary. Both of these water courses are tributaries to the Neshanic River. Mr. Ford reported that the septic systems had been successfully tested at their new locations due to address the concerns of residents. Mr. Ford met with the Environmental Commission in April of 2002. At that time he indicated to the Environmental Commission that a hydrogeologist would be hired by the Applicant to perform testing on the wells at the site for yield and to assess the potential impact of the proposed subdivision on the aquifer. The Environmental Commission stated that they would like to have a consultant review the tests and the Township did receive a proposal from Peter DeMicco. Both consultants met with Mr. Ford and Dr. Belnay to discuss and outline the scope of the testing to be done in accordance with the well ordinance. Within the next four weeks test wells will be installed and testing will be done in compliance with Dr. Belnay s request. The well report will be presented to the Board at a future Planning Board meeting. Mr. Wells stated that the Environmental Commission agreed that a second opinion on the well testing would be beneficial. Mr. Wells made a motion to hire Pete DeMicco using escrow funds to review the hydrogeology study on the wells, seconded by Valerie Chaucer-Levine. All Board members agreed unanimously. Mr. Ford reported that the proposal for well testing would also include offers to specific residents immediately adjacent to the property to be participants in the study. A letter will be sent to the residents OCTOBER 5, 2007 4
outlining the specifics of the testing. Mr. Ford reported that measurements would be taken at the participant s wells so that specific impacts during the well test pumping on the onsite well would be immediately measured and used as part of the hydrogeology report. There was a question of how many resident wells would be tested. Mr. Ford reported that there are six wells that Dr. Belnay suggested be noticed for potential participants. Mr. Ford noted the differences in the cluster plan from the conventional layout: The cul de sac is approximately 150 feet shorter The road pavement width is 18 feet rather than 28 feet The road would be grass lined and swaled to promote infiltration of runoff and to control the stormwater runoff from the road. No proposed widening of Wertsville Road Proposed lots vary in size from 2 to 2 ½ acres Remaining lands for open space would be 12.29 acres. Approximately 2.6 acres is the wetland area, buffers and floodplain. An LOI has been issued for the wetlands, One five acre for the existing dwelling and outbuildings Landscaping layout is essentially the same with the street trees located along the proposed road and the replacement trees, as part of the tree preservation plan, are located at adjoining property lines and supplementing the tract boundary which is a hedge row. Trees along Wertsville Road would be replaced with street trees and additional landscaping would be added on the corner lot to address the concerns for the houses along Wertsville Road and offer more buffering for traffic. Setbacks have not changed. Dedication of approximately 40% of the tract reduces the maximum potential for impervious coverage. Reduction in the lot sizes from 3 acre minimum to 2 to 2.5 acres also reduces impervious coverage. Original plan was reviewed by the Historic Commission for the existing farmstead. The Historic Commission recommended preserving the historic outbuildings which will result in a varaince for impervious coverage for the remaining five acre lot which is slightly over 8%. Tree preservation ordinance permits a maximum of 20% disturbance of the total wooded area on the property. This plan is at 8%. Mr. Ford stated that he just received the report from CME today and will address their concerns at the next meeting. The meeting was opened for public comment. Pepper Craig of Wertsville Road asked to have her well tested. Doug Chludzinski of Wertsville Road had concerns about the well testing and landscaping. He asked that the results of the testing be sent to him when completed. Kathryn Magulak of Montgomery Road stated that she appreciated the extra effort the Board is putting into well testing. John Giarrusso of Wertsville Road had concerns about how this development will effect his water supply. Candace Ryan of Mongtomery Road had concerns about the water supply. Frank Reischach had concerns about dry wells. John Flannagan of Montgomery Road stated that he would like to be informed of the well testing results. He also asked if there were any recommendations made by the Environmental Commission. Mr. Wells OCTOBER 5, 2007 5
indicated that a draft memo had been prepared and a report will be issued to the Board by the Environmental Commission shortly. Tim Johnson of Montgomery Road has concerns about wells in the area. David Rock of Montgomery Road stated that he has a sheep farm adjacent to the property and was concerned about wells. He also made reference to the Right to Farm Act and suggested that properties on this land be deed restricted to protect the farmers in this area. Lisa Thompson of Montgomery Road had concerns about the wells and the number of lots allowed in the cluster option. Josephine Falzone of David s Lane explained to the Board the problems she had with her well and septic system. A motion to continue the application to July 11, 2002 was made by Lynn Winters-Mineo, seconded by Bill Pugh. CORRESPONDENCE ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn was made by Ed Wysocki, seconded by Bob Lawton. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Submitted by, Darlene Reed Planning Board Clerk OCTOBER 5, 2007 6