September 18, 2007

A regularly scheduled meeting of the Wantage Township Land Use Board was held on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at the Wantage Township Municipal Building. The meeting was held in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, Public Laws 1975, Chapter 231.

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

Mr. Smith informed the Board members that the subcommittee met with Rachel Manor Properties to review the canopy and the signage. Due to the fact that they are changing the entrance the sign will be approx. 100 ft. from the intersection so there are no issues about the color of the sign and the red color of the traffic light.

Mr. Smith stated that the request made by 565 Land Development for a refund of a portion of the application fees in connection with application # L-15-2007 was reviewed. The applicant requested to have $800.00 back. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant needed a conditional use variance and that was $300.00. The applicant did not need the use variance for which the applicant paid $500. The Board recommended the refund of $500.00.

Mr. Hough made a motion seconded by Mr. Space to refund the $500.00 use variance application fee.

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

RESOLUTIONS

L-15-2007 - 565 LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Hough made a motion seconded by Mr. Cecchini to adopt the resolution memorializing the Board’s decision of August 21, 2007 to approve the application of 565 Land Development LLC for Block 117, Lot 38.01, as shown on the Tax Map of the Township of Wantage located on County Route 565 in the Highway-Commercial (HC) Zone and R-5 Zone, requesting conditional site plan approval, bulk variance relief, site plan waivers and soil removal permit review and recommendation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-67, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(2), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-51 and Chapter 23 of the Township of Wantage Code, 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 subject to the Applicant complying with all terms and conditions of the Board Engineer's report dated July 2, 2007, revised August 16, 2007 and/or as same may have been modified at the time of the hearing.
3. This approval is subject to the Applicant submitting its signage plans for further review by the Board Engineer to confirm compliance with the Ordinance requirements for signage.
4. This approval is subject to the Applicant providing certification that the groundwater table is or is not within eight feet of the proposed final grades and should be added to the plans.
5. This approval is subject to the Applicant providing specific drainage details for the proposed detention basin and meeting with the Board Engineer to finalize these details and revise the plans.
6. This approval is subject to the Applicant meeting with the Board Engineer to review the buffer requirements relative to the maintenance of appropriate buffers to the exterior property lines.
7. This approval is subject to the Applicant correcting the plans to show the correct labeling for the stockpile location for Stage 2.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Certificate that taxes are paid to date of approval.
11. Sussex County Planning Board approval.
12. NJDEP Letter of Interpretation.
13. Township of Wantage Soil Removal Permit approval.
14. Township of Wantage Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Permit.
15. 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: Bono, Cecchini, Kanapinski, Hough, DeBoer, Smith.
THOSE OPPOSED: None. MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Space had stepped out of the room and was not able to vote on this resolution.

APPLICATIONS

L-17-2006 PATRICK KELLY

The applicant requested a two-month extension of minor subdivision approval. The application was approved on 1/23/07 with resolution adopted 2/27/07.

Mr. Gonzalez referred to the letter from Attorney William Hinkes requesting the extension. Due to health issues of the Board engineer, the deed review letter did not go out in time for the applicant to comply with the requirements. On the basis of that delay, the applicant is requesting a two-month extension to perfect the minor subdivision.

Mr. Hough made a motion seconded by Mr. Space to grant a six-month extension to this applicant.

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

L-19-2007 TARA INN

Application for site plan approval of a 10’ x 10’ gazebo which has already been constructed. The gazebo is not permitted as an accessory use in the HC zone. A variance is needed for the rear yard setback. The property is known as Blk. 117, Lot 31 and is located on County Route 565 and is located in the HC zone.

Attorney Gary A. Kraemer and Lee Coenen, the owner, appeared before the Board. Mr. Kraemer first introduced Exhibit A1, Affidavit of notice to Sussex Rural Electric and explained that the notice had been sent to the incorrect address and that he had obtained an affidavit from the company stating that they had received the notice prior to the hearing.

Mr. Mike Cecchini stepped down

The applicant explained that the gazebo is a non-permanent 10’ x 10’ structure that is 90% complete. He stated that there are no footings and that it can be moved. There is no bar inside the gazebo although one is intended along with approximately 12 bar stools. There are three (3) tables outside around the gazebo right now with 4 chairs each, a self contained cooler for beer. There will be no sinks and plastic cups will be used and there will be no drinking or smoking in front of the building only behind the building and in the back area.

Mr. Kraemer asked Mr. Coenen to explain how the approval of this gazebo would benefit the business. Mr. Coenen stated that the existing building is tiny so the gazebo was a part of his business plan to help carry him through the summer.

Mr. Smith stated the Board and the applicant had an informal meeting after the original approval regarding a smoking area. At that meeting the applicant was informed that he needed to come back with a site plan and notice was required. Mr. Smith asked if this area was intended before the original approval why was this area not included in the original plans. He stated that the present plans had not been reviewed by the Board previously. Mr. Smith asked if the latest plan was the one that went to the county for approval. Mr. Smith stated that the information on the plan, curbs, setbacks, radius, entrances on the map and that property is non-existent. The applicant and the attorney explained that they were required to make revisions on the sight distance, that the county stated that no approval was necessary and that they only needed revised plans including the county’s notes. Mr. Smith stated the gazebo is actually 18’ x 18’, including the 4’ overhang.

Mr. Pellow’s report was reviewed. Additional parking may be needed, a variance may be needed for the rear yard setback, distance between the deck and the gazebo to be shown on the map, additional lighting might be needed. Mr. Smith stated that the original approval was the interior of the building for x number of people, the septic system was approved based upon the inside use, now it might double or triple the number of people. Mr. Vander Berg replied that occupancy has not been defined so the bathrooms might be undersized and that the county cannot make a decision unless they have a definite number of occupants.

The meeting was opened to the public. There was no one from the public to present opinions on this application. The meeting was closed to the public and opened to the Board. Mr. Space said he does not want to see the applicant come back if he can work with Mr. Pellow to fill the requirements. Ms. Kanapinski said that based on the occupancy parking had to be figured out. Mr. DeBoer asked if motorcycles had to have the same size parking space as he thinks business is mostly when there is a motorcycle event. Mr. Gonzalez stated that the issues with occupancy load will help the construction officials in determining how the site complies added to the issue that Ms. Kanapinski raised dealing with how does the occupancy load affect parking. Mr. Coenen said that there is room for approximately thirty cars. He added that approximately 67 people come per day and seats wise is ok. Mr. Kraemer said that the number of people is based on the number that the septic can accommodate. Mr. Vander Berg thinks more bathrooms might have to be added according to the IBC, and proper fixture count will have to be supplied. Mr. Smith suggested that since the gazebo is not attached to the ground moving it 5 ft would eliminate the variance; Mr. DeBoer disagreed with Mr. Smith as he did not see the reason for moving the gazebo 5 ft.

Mr. Kervatt said there is a large deck in use as well. Mr. Hough believes that this seasonal gazebo is going to create large parties, and he has had some of the neighbors come and complain to him…Mr. Smith stated that there are issues with Wantage and the Board with the occupancy. He believes that if occupancy is expanding beyond what was originally approved then applicant has to let the Board know what he is going to do in order to accommodate more people. Mr. Bono said that there are two issues, the size of the septic and the number of fixtures. Mr. Vander Berg thinks he might need a ladies’ bathroom with two toilets and a men’s bathroom with two urinals in addition to the toilet. He believes that this is an incomplete application. Mr. DeBoer asked if it is legal to have portajohns outside for the people outside. Ms. Mylecraine inquired about the liquor license and Mr. Coenen stated that it had been approved by the county and town. Mr. Grau said that he agreed with Mr. Hough about the noise factor since there are some houses close to the property. Mr. DeBoer said he has not had any complaints about the issue. Mr. Pellow added that there were only 14 parking spaces and more spaces would have to be added to be consistent with the occupancy load.

Ms. Kanapinski asked if he could get the information and return next week for the meeting on September 25th. It was discussed to postpone this application until October 16th.

Ms. Kanapinski asked the applicant if activities outside lasted until 2 am. Mr. Coenen replied that he was very aware of the noise ordinance until 10:00 p.m. and that so far the latest they have stayed is 9:30 p.m. He added that he has not had any problems with any of the neighbors.

It was discussed that the applicant needed to address bathroom issue, talk to Mr. Vander Berg about the requirements, add more parking, and show the load capacity.

Mr. Hough made a motion seconded by Ms. Kanapinski to carry this application to the October 16th meeting without prejudice, no further notice required. This will allow the applicant to compile all the information that is needed.

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

Ms. Kanapinski asked the applicant if he has a timetable when he is going to do the curbing as this was required by the previous tenant. She stated that the applicant’s business has been almost one year and she wondered when would the improvement be completed. Mr. Kraemer indicated that the county did not require a meeting and they only need to see the revised plans as per the county requirements.

Mr. Gonzalez announced to the members of the public that this application has been carried to the October 16, 2007 meeting with no further notice required.

INFORMAL

Gilmore Properties, LLC – Attorney Michael Gaus and engineer Kenneth Wentink appeared before the Board to discuss the site plan that was approved for Blk. 17, Lot 14, located on Route 565.

The applicant plans to submit an application for final site plan approval based on the preliminary site plan approval for a multiple-unit retail operation that was granted in 1993. The applicant wanted to inform the Board first due to the length of time since the preliminary approval. The site was never developed. Mr. Gaus stated that his client has recently purchased the property and would like to develop the property for the use that was granted. Mr. Gaus stated that the zoning that was in place in 1993 as it relates to that proposed use has not changed. Mr. Gaus stated that the law in New Jersey grants protection for a period of three years from any zoning changes and then allows for two one-year extensions. If no zoning changes occur then the site plan approval does not expire as long as there has been no subsequent change in the Land Use Regulations that would cause the Approved Site Plan and permitted use to be inconsistent with current zoning.

Several issues were discussed, including: A letter of interpretation, drainage, architectural plans, and county approval. Mr. Gaus stated that a drainage easement has been obtained and recorded with the county, county approval was obtained in 1993 or 1994 and that no substantial architectural changes are proposed.

Mr. Smith said the Board would encourage this project because it would enhance that area near the library.

Ms. Kanapinski suggested coming in with Amended Preliminary Site Plan. Mike Gaus thinks that construction should be done after the final and then do as built. Mr. Gonzalez suggested Amended Preliminary and Final Site Plan.

GENERAL ISSUES

Mr. Smith stated that Board members are on-call for the September 25th meeting. Mr. Gonzalez informed the Board that the Judge will advise on Thursday if notice by CJS is necessary. If the meeting is cancelled, the secretary will post a notice on the door of the Municipal Building and notify the Board members. Also a notice on the website would be encouraged.

The signage ordinance was reviewed and it was agreed that a couple of corrections would be done. Mr. Smith stated that he would be attending the Township Committee meeting on the sign ordinance.

Ann Smulewicz asked about the Rachel Manor resolution. It was explained that a resolution to correct an error on the resolution is on the agenda for the Board’s next meeting. Mr. Smith informed Ms. Smulewicz that Rachel Manor is moving about 20 ft. from the property line. She stated that she is concerned about the lighting issue.

ADJOURNMENT

On a motion duly made seconded and carried the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Stella Salazar
Assistant Secretary