May 15, 2007

A regularly scheduled meeting of the Wantage Township Land Use Board was held on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at the Wantage Township Municipal Building. The meeting was held in compliance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act, Public Laws 1975, Chapter 231. It was properly noticed and posted to the public.

ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Mssrs. Grau, Hough, Space, DeBoer, Slate, Smith. Mmes. Kanapinski, Mylecraine, Gill. Attorney Bryant Gonzalez, Engineer Harold Pellow, Construction Official Ed Vander Berg. ABSENT: Mssrs. Bono, Cecchini, Cillaroto.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Kanapinski made a motion seconded by Mr. DeBoer to approve the minutes of the Joint Special Meeting of the Mayor and Committee of the Township of Wantage with the Wantage Township Land Use Board held on December 14, 2005.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Kanapinski, Space, DeBoer, Slate, Mylecraine, Gill.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

RESOLUTIONS

L-1-2007 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS
Mr. Slate made a motion seconded by Mr. Smith to adopt the resolution memorializing the Board’s decision of April 24, 2007 to approve the application of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless for Block 44, Lot 13.02, as shown on the Tax Map of the Township of Wantage located at 10 Layton Road in the Mount Laurel (ML) Zone, requesting minor site plan and conditional use approval under the Municipal Land Use Law pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46.1 and N.J.S.A. 40:55D-67, subject to the following terms and conditions:

1. The development of this parcel shall be implemented in accordance with the plans submitted and approved.
2. This approval is granted strictly in accordance with the site plans prepared by Papay Engineering and Construction, Inc. as revised through February 8, 2007, consisting of five (5) sheets and any subsequent revisions thereto as approved by the Land Use Board and in consultation with the Board Engineer.
3. The Applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions contained in the Board Engineer's review report prepared by Harold E. Pellow, P.E., L.S., dated January 19, 2007 and/or as same may have been modified at the time of the hearing.
4. The granting of this application is subject to the Applicant complying with all terms of the Wantage Land Use Regulations at Section 13-24.20.2, subsection "e".
5. The granting of this application is subject to and conditioned upon the Applicant receiving Sussex County Planning Board approval or Letter of No Interest.
6. Prior to the issuance of any construction permit, the Applicant shall file with the Board and Construction Official an affidavit verifying that the Applicant is in receipt of all necessary agency approvals other than the municipal agency having land use jurisdiction over the application and supply a copy of any approvals received.
7. Payment of all fees, costs, escrows due or to become due. Any monies are to be paid within twenty (20) days of said request by the Board’s Secretary.
8. Certificate that taxes are paid to date of approval.
9. Subject to all other applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes of the Township of Wantage, County of Sussex, State of New Jersey, or any other jurisdiction.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: DeBoer, Slate, Smith, Gill.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

L-28-2006 JARET BUILDERS, INC. (JOSEPH RETZ)

Mr. DeBoer made a motion seconded by Mr. Hough to adopt the resolution memorializing the Board’s decision of April 24, 2007 to approve the application of Jaret Builders, Inc. for Block 132, Lot 3.20, as shown on the Tax Map of the Township of Wantage located at 147 Libertyville Road, in the R-1 Zone, requesting final major subdivision approval with ancillary "c" variance relief is hereby granted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-50 and N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c), subject to the following terms and conditions:

1. The development of this parcel shall be implemented in accordance with the plans submitted and approved.
2. This approval is granted strictly in accordance with the major subdivision plans prepared by Thomas J. Forsythe, Jr., P.E., Maser Consulting, P.A., dated July 10, 2003 and consisting of ten (10) sheets and/or as same may have been modified in furtherance of this Resolution or in consultation with the Board Engineer.
3. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Township Engineer's review reports dated July 23, 2003, August 11, 2003 and October 26, 2006 and/or as same have been revised during the course of the hearings in this matter.
4. The Applicant shall make a contribution to the Road Trust Fund in the amount of $2,100.00 per lot for a total of $16,800.00.
5. The granting of this approval is subject to and conditioned upon the Applicant discussing and resolving the issue of detention basin maintenance with the Township.
6. This approval is subject to and conditioned upon the Applicant providing the Board with a copy of all approvals obtained inclusive of any County approvals.
7. This approval is subject to the applicant providing a copy of all easements and descriptions to the Board Engineer and Board Attorney for review and approval.
8. This approval is subject to and conditioned upon the Applicant satisfying all affordable housing obligations as required by the Wantage Township Land Use Regulations, subject to final review and approval by the governing body.
9. This approval is subject to and conditioned upon the Applicant providing photographs of the finished road product on Libertyville Road.
10. Prior to the issuance of any construction permit, the Applicant shall file with the Board and Construction Official an affidavit verifying that the Applicant is in receipt of all necessary agency approvals other than the municipal agency having land use jurisdiction over the application and supply a copy of any approvals received.
11. Payment of all fees, costs, escrows due or to become due. Any monies are to be paid within twenty (20) days of said request by the Board’s Secretary.
12. Certificate that taxes are paid to date of approval.
13. Subject to all other applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes of the Township of Wantage, County of Sussex, State of New Jersey, or any other jurisdiction.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Hough, Space, DeBoer, Slate, Smith, Mylecraine, Gill.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

The applicant, Mr. Joseph Retz, and his attorney, Mr. Keith A. Hyche, appeared before the Board to address the COAH issue. Mr Hyche stated for the record that in October when they appeared before the Board for the final subdivision application, they were told to go before the Township Committee to discuss the COAH obligation. They did that last week and they were sent back to the Land Use Board. Mr. Gonzalez explained that the resolution is subject to the regulations of the Township and the Board does not write those, the Board only enforces them. Mr. DeBoer stated that COAH fees are due according to the State. It is not the Township’s decision, it is the State’s regulation. He stated that if the State says that the applicant does not have to pay and that the Township is not responsible then it will be waived. He stated that otherwise and if the applicant does not pay the COAH obligation then the taxpayers will have to pay them. Mr. Hyche stated that they may be able to do that.

APPLICATIONS

L-11-2007 JEFFREY PARROTT
This application was carried to May 22, 2007.

Mr. Grau made a motion seconded by Mr. Slate to carry this application without prejudice to the May 22, 2007 meeting.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Grau, Kanapinski, Hough, Space, DeBoer, Slate, Mylecraine, Gill, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

L-19-2006 MICHAEL PELLEGRINO
The applicant is proposing to construct a 36’4” by 22’1” addition to his existing house onto an adjacent lot proposed for annexation. The property is known as Blk. 69.01, Lot 38 and Blk. 69.02, Lot 41 and is located on North Shore Drive in the R-2 zone.

Attorney Martin Van Der Heide III and Mr. Michael Pellegrino appeared before the Board.

Ms. Kanapinski stepped off the dais due to conflict.

Mr. Van Der Heide stated that the application was for variances to allow an addition to an existing home. The applicant has two adjoining lots in Lake Neepaulin. Three variances are being requested: variance for existing non-conforming side yard of 5.1 ft., variance for front yard of 21.8’ and floor area of 1587 sq.ft. As a condition of approval the applicant will merge the two lots.

As part of the application, the applicant submitted seven photographs of different views of the house. The septic system was upgraded to a 3-bedroom septic when the applicant purchased the house in 2003. It was discussed that the applicant must submit Health Department certification. Mr. Pellegrino stated that most of the houses in the area have non-conforming set backs and some of the houses are even closer to the road.

Mr. Pellow’s report was reviewed. The variances being requested were discussed. The building height is not shown on the plans, the applicant will submit an answer on that issue. The engineer commented that the site slopes to the south and asked if any fill was proposed. The applicant stated that he did not think it was necessary since the property is pretty leveled for the first 20 ft approximately. The applicant is to apply for a driveway permit. Roof drains to be tied into a drywell.

There was no one from the public present on this application. The Board members did not have any additional questions.

Mr. Grau made a motion seconded by Ms. Gill to approve this application subject to Mr. Pellow’s report, a response memo by the applicant, variances for the front yard, side yard and the floor area, a septic certificate from the Health Department, and the engineer’s review of the revised plan.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
THOSE IN FAVOR: Grau, Hough, Space, DeBoer, Slate, Mylecraine, Gill, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

L-29-2006 RACHEL MANOR PROPERTIES

The applicant is seeking preliminary and final site plan and subdivision approval for 10 lots which will house the development of a 5,773 square foot Wawa Food Market with (8) gasoline dispensers, a 10,350 square foot retail building, 24 age-restricted townhouses, 48 age-restricted condominiums and a 5 bedroom group home, with all related site improvements. The property is known as Blk. 11, Lots 6.02 & 7 and is located on Route 23 in the HC zone.

Chairman Smith stated to the members of the public that this is a very comprehensive application that involves 8 to 10 pieces of property. Each of these pieces of property involves variances. The application will be discussed piece meal so that the Board and the public understand each aspect.

Attorney Steven Rother appeared before the Land Use Board. Mr. Rother stated that a use variance was granted in October of 2004 for 117 residential units in this HC zone with resolution memorialized in April 2005. There was mention at that time during the presentation of some commercial. Since then, this application has taken much more definition. He stated that he would like his engineer to give a brief overview of the entire site so that everyone can become a bit acclimated to what they are planning to do. From there they will proceed with the presentation of the Wawa Development. Following they will have a testimony on the utilities discussing water and sewer. They will follow that with the architecture presentation for balance of the site. They will close with their planner to wrap up the variances that are being requested.

Mr. Clifton W. Quay, Engineer and Planner, of Vollmer Associates of Rochelle Park, N.J. made a presentation and discussed the exhibits.

Exhibit A1, color rendering of the site and the landscaping plans, dated 5/14/2007. The site is 31½ acres comprised of two lots. Lot A is proposed to have the Wawa. Lot B is proposed for a commercial parcel. Lot C is proposed to contain 24 residential units, Lot D proposed 48, two-story flats, Lot E is for the group home, Lot F is the proposed water treatment facility, Lot G is for the water tank, Lot H is the remainder of the property to remain open. A new road connection to Route 23, proposed Golden Boulevard and Overlook Way which will end in a P-loop. There will be parking spaces at the P-loop which will service the condominiums and the group home. There will be a driveway entrance for the retail building coming off of Overlook. Overlook Way will be a public road up to where the P-loop is, is proposed to be a public street. The P-loop itself, is proposed to be a private street. The townhomes will have rear drive with rear 2-car garages. There will be retaining walls of various height proposed around the back of the site, running down what would be the future bypass area. There will be retaining walls on the northern edge of the site, and some walls that will be lower on the southern side of the condominium style flats. There will also be a retaining wall running down the back of the Wawa parcel.

Exhibit A2, 1/1 horizontal/vertical scale of a section cut through the site from West to East, coming from what would be the utility, the water tower lot, straight down through the site to Route 23, down through the retail, down through the Wawa site and out to the highway.

Ms. Mylecraine asked why detached garages. Mr. Quay stated that there are a lot of topographic constraints on the site and that they are also trying to achieve a “village” type feel by pushing the houses closer to the road.

Mr. Tim Prime, attorney for the Wawa group, stated that Wawa is in five states, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The company is a privately owned company not a franchise. He explained that the Wawa convenience store will be approximately 5,773 sq.ft. with six (6) gasoline dispensers. Each dispenser has two pumps, so there will be a total of 12 fueling positions. The hours of operation will be 24 hours, seven days.

Mr. Prime stated that the variances that are requested include a variance from the provision of the ordinance that requires that service stations have at least a half mile separation or distance between them. Other variances relate to the signage. The applicant is proposing Wawa’s standard sign package. There is no signage on the canopy. There will be a 106 sq.ft. freestanding sign that will have the Wawa name and the gasoline pricing. A variance is required since 25 sq.ft. is allowed. Also requested is a 7ft set back variance for the freestanding sign instead of the required 20ft. A variance is required for the size of the façade sign. A variance is required for the “spanner board signs” that span underneath the canopy. These are informational signs that say “Open 24 hours” and “Full Serve”. Mr. Quay expanded on the applicant’s needs to have these signs.

Exhibit A3, Proposed exterior elevations, was introduced. Mr. Prime stated that the exterior features, style, colors, and the stone were designed strictly for Wantage.

Chairman Smith stated that Planner David Troast would review the design plan for compliance.

Mr. Irv Szeller, Divisional Real Estate Manager for Wawa for New Jersey appeared before the Board. He prepared the use and operations report. The report contains information regarding the proposed number of employees, hours of operation, deliveries, solid waste and store maintenance.

Mr. DeBoer asked if this would just be gas and/or diesel. Mr. Prime stated it would be gas only.

Mr. Rother stated that Mr. Baker, attorney for regulatory matters, was unable to come to the hearing. He indicated however, that paperwork has been submitted to D.E.P. and it is currently being reviewed by the state.

Mr. Adam Stern, P.E., Civil and Environmental Engineering, licensed in New Jersey and Delaware with the majority of projects in New Jersey, explained the wastewater treatment design. He stated that the emergency response if needed can be two hours and that the quality of water leaving the plan is very similar to drinking water. He added that it is expected that the homeowner’s association will be the owner of the facility, and there will probably be several associations for the entire project. Mr. Stern added that this design is leading-edge technology but it’s a proven technology and it’s been implemented many times before. He went on to say that the utilities will be enclosed to match the rest of the site.

Mr. Smith opened the meeting to the public with any questions pertaining to the treatment facility. There was no one from the public wishing to come forward. However, it was discussed that if someone at some point during this application had any questions for this witness, the applicant would bring him back.

Mr. DeBoer asked how close would the treatment plant be to the existing restaurant on Route 23. The engineer stated that it was 149 ft. Ms. Gill asked how far was the treatment facility from the property line and if there had to be fencing around the fields surrounding the treatment facility as they look somewhat close to the townhouses. The engineer stated the distance was 150 ft and that there was no need for the fencing as it would essentially look like a grassed area. Mr. Stern added that the only structure above grade is the treatment facility itself. The building is approximately 35 x 35 and the sludge is to be cleaned out once per month.

Mr. Pellow asked if the applicant had a similar treatment facility in the area that they could look at. Mr. Stern stated that he would send Mr. Pellow a list of several locations in the area and that they can set up a tour.

It was also discussed that the applicant has done enough test holes to ensure good discharge and no seepage out to the adjoining property.

Mr. Wendall Inhoffer, former superintendent and chief engineer of Passaic Valley Water Commission for 30 years and whose area of expertise is potable water. Mr. Inhoffer explained that this project calls for 12 gallons a minute, average daily use. That number multiplied by three for a total of 33 gallons and they are designing for 35 gallons a minute. They need two wells at 35 gallons a minute. He stated that the first well drilled produced 40 gallons a minute. He stated that he is working with Mr. Pellow’s office to put together a program that will work with everybody.

The meeting was opened to the public for questions relating to this witness’ testimony. Ms. Ann Smulewicz, adjacent neighbor, stated that she was concerned about water. She wanted the record to show that she has never been without water. She has an adjacent restaurant plus an apartment that has never had a problem with water. She is hopeful that there will never be a problem. Mr. Inhoffer suggested with her permission, using her well to test. Ms. Smulewicz agreed and was happy with that suggestion. Mr. DeBoer asked if once the project is done, if there is a problem and Ms. Smulewicz comes back to the Board, what is the Board going to do. It was explained that testing is in the ordinance for the reason of protecting the neighbors. However, aquifers can dry up for no apparent reason and that is the reason why the Board came back with that testing.

Ms. Mylecraine asked what is the long term effect with a project of this size. Mr. Inhoffer stated that pumps should be lowered to where the wells are. In addition, water that the site is using is going back into the ground not into the river.

Mr. Smith asked if the tank being proposed in an area that is about 60 ft. higher than the buildings, a buffer would be necessary. Mr. Inhoffer stated that there are plenty of trees and room for trees that will conceal the tank. It was discussed that the tank will hold 200,000 gallons of water. The tank will provide a substantial amount of water for firefighters and it will provide water not only for this project but for other areas on Route 23 as well. Two hydrants are proposed in the Wawa parking lot. Retail establishements and homes within 500 ft of the hydrant can get a decrease on insurance rates.

There was no one else from the public wishing to come forward with questions for this witness.

Mr. Matthew B. Jarmel, Architect, licensed in about 12 states and a principal in Jarmel Kizel Architects and Engineers, LLC, located in Livingston, N.J. appeared before the Board to discuss the architectural plans.

Exhibit A4, a rendering of buildings looking from Route 23 past the Wawa, retail building and the first two buildings traveling from south to north along Overlook Road was introduced.

Mr. Jarmel explained that one of the components of the site is a retail building that is 9,975 sq.ft. in area. At this time there are no tenants identified for it but it is intended to be a neighborhood retail center. There are four townhome buildings. Each building contains six townhome units, for a total of 24. Each home will have a two-car garage in the rear of the property with a breezeway between the garage and the house. The townhomes are two levels. Some of them will have a partial basement because of their grade. The area’s steep grade will allow them to do things to vary the height of the rooflines, elevations will have similar buildings but as they step down the hill they will look different from each other and have kind of slightly different appearances from Route 23. A height variance is being sought, as some of the units will actually, depending on the topography, extend beyond the permitted height. The retail building will have a very similar residential character very fitting to the neighborhood. The building will have a high roof, a clock tower, some dormers and signage to be consistent in design and color with the ordinance. The townhomes will have high pitching roofs and a lower roof, dormers, traditional windows. Because there will be only six units together, the applicant is not creating a long strip, but instead they are trying to break it up. Due to the steeps and the slopes, the development will have a rolling hill effect. The condominium buildings are two stories in height. The applicant is proposing varying rooflines in these buildings, as well, so they don’t look like big boxes. The facades will be stepped in and out and these buildings will have porches or balconies within them. Parking for these units will be in the front of the buildings, along the loop road. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. David Troast would review the architectural design to make sure it complies with the ordinance.

Mr. Smith asked if the applicant had something on the group home that the public could see. Mr. Rother stated that they only had the plan and that they had not intended to have an architect testify to that at this hearing. He said, however, that portion of the project is being proposed in cooperation with SCARC. They have a standard design that they use for their five-bedroom home and that was the design that was submitted. He added that it is a single-story structure. He stated that the applicant would, if the Board so wished, provide further explanation. Mr. Jarmel stated that it would probably be of a similar residential character and designed to blend in.

Ms. Kanapinski asked if the condominium buildings, being two stories and age-restricted were required by COAH to have elevators. Mr. Jarmel replied that the New Jersey Uniform and Construction Code did not require elevators. He explained that seeing how these are flats and it’s a short flight of stairs, they think that it does work. He stated that age-restricted does not actually mean old or disabled and that there are many people that may still be characterized as middle aged or that would fall into that category that might be interested in those upper units.

Ms. Kanapinski asked what the exterior of the SCARC building would be like. Mr. Jarmel described the plans prepared by Charles Schaffer Associates, architect and planner, that bears a title block and license. He stated that the structure would be a single-family building, that uses residential shingles and sloping roof. It looks very much like a large, single-family home and from his personal opinion, he thinks that it will fit well within the site and the character of the rest of the project. The façade material is proposed to have a stone or masonry base that comes up just below the first floor windows. Then, a combination of stucco-type material and traditional residential siding is proposed.

Mr. Smith opened this portion of the meeting to the public on the design of the buildings. There was no one from the public wishing to come forward. Mr. Grau asked if these units would be rentals, purchased, or if somebody could purchase a six-unit building. Mr. Rother indicated that it is depending upon the market. However, he is sure that the applicant would like to do for–sale. He stated that as far as someone buying a six-unit building would probably be limited to the units and that the applicant is not looking to create landlords within the project.

Mr. Smith opened the meeting to the public for any questions concerning the Wawa. Mr. Tom Pastore, owner of property across the street, stated that he is concerned with the roadway. He asked for more information if Route 23 is going to change much there. Mr. Prime stated that the plan proposes a traffic signal at the intersection. That signal may require easements from adjacent property owners wither to the west or to the north and the final configuration pen is on the DOT approval and if easements are required, the applicant will have to negotiate those easements prior to construction. He stated that some easements with their next door neighbor and possible the gentleman across the street are being discussed.

Mr. Joe Pastore, owner of Town II Auto Body stated that they are a part of this plan so he would expect the Board to weigh the whole situation and consider the impact this project will have on their property.

Mr. DeBoer asked Mr. Prime what would happen if Mr. Pastore did not want to give the applicant an easement and if he thought that the plan was going to affect his property at all. Mr. Prime stated that the applicant would then have to develop an alternate plan that did not require an easement. Mr. Prime added that as presently configured, it depends on how much they can slide the roadway to Mr. Biczak’s property, if at all. Right now that plan does not involve any easements from the Biczak property next door. The only impact on Mr. Pastore’s property is that if he has access to the light, DOT would require a common driveway. They do not want two separate driveways too close to each other at the lot. A common driveway would substantially improve the safety and the situation and the access for that property. If the Pastores choose not to do so, then the plan will have to be adjusted. They do not need any easements to build the light. The issue would be by building the light they are creating a situation where it would be unsafe for the Pastores to continue their two driveways. Mr. DeBoer stated the fact that we are dealing with two different properties that are owned by the same person. If they were ever to sell one of the properties and they had a common driveway, then that would have an impact on the sale of that piece of property. Mr. Prime stated that this plan is still with DOT and that once it is approved, then they will know exactly what they have to do. Again, he reiterated, it also depends on adjacent property.

Ms. Gill stated to the representatives of the Wawa, that the Board worked very hard on the sign ordinance and it was just revised. There was a discussion of what was approved for Quick Check. Mr. Smith stated that their proposed signs are very close to Quick Check’s. They also agreed that the location of the sign depends on where the light is.

Mr. Prime and Mr. Rother asked the Board to consider granting preliminary approval tonight. The Board stated that there were still a lot issues that needed to be dealt with. Besides the signage plan, the traffic study, the COAH, and some issues on variances and how it has been presented. Mr. Gonzalez stated that in terms of preliminary you want to hammer out all the issues so that when the applicant comes back for final, it is just more of a checklist and this Board likes to work in that manner. From a legal standpoint, he did not feel the Board had all the information that it requires to make in informed decision to grant preliminary approval for the entirety of the project, not just the Wawa site. He recommended to the Board not to take action tonight, but to have the additional information that Mr. Pellow needs on traffic and get some clarification on some of the COAH calculations, some clarification on the water tower issue and getting some input from David Troast as to some of the signage issues on the Wawa site. The Board would benefit from his input as to whether he thinks the size of the signage is appropriate versus other projects that he’s been involved with in the township. The Board will ask Mr. Troast to attend the next hearing with this applicant. Mr. Gonzalez then asked Mr. Prime if it would be possible to have a copy of the transcript also sent to Mr. Troast so he can review the testimony with respect to the planning variances.

This application was carried to the Board’s June 26th meeting. No further notice is required.

ADJOURNMENT

On a motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Stella Salazar
Assistant Secretary