MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THURSDAY, MAY 28, 2015

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THURSDAY, MAY 28, 2015 Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Acting Chairman Jim Kirby, Councilman Ryan, Paul Mathewson, Jennifer Critchley, Melissa Collins, Larry Lonergan, Victor Lugo, Michael Foley, Jim Helb, Township Engineer, Greg Mascera, Planning Board Attorney Absent: Chairman William Brown, Tom Freeman Also Present: Jason Kasler, Township Planner Pledge of Allegiance: Public Participation: Acting Chairman Kirby asked if any members of the public had any questions regarding any non-agenda items. Seeing none, chair closes public participation. Approval of Minutes: Approval of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting held on Thursday, April 23, Acting Chairman Kirby asked for a motion to approve. Motioned by Councilman Ryan. S/Ms. Critchley. All in favor with Mr. Mathewson and Mr. Foley abstaining. Memorialization of Resolution: Memorialization of Resolution No , Major Subdivision with related variances as deemed necessary, Durrell Street, Block 68, Lot 13 Acting Chairman Kirby asked for a motion to approve. Motioned by Councilman Ryan. S/Mr. Lugo. All in favor with Mr. Mathewson and Mr. Foley abstaining. Consistency Determination of Ordinance #1-15 with the Master Plan: An Ordinance Adopting the Town Center Redevelopment Update Plan and Amending and Supplementing Chapter 150 Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the Verona Township and to Designate the Owner of the Property as the Redeveloper for the Redevelopment Plan Mr. Mascera stated the Council has passed on first reading Ordinance No that has to do with the Brunner property and the redevelopment plan which has been before this body once before and the Ordinance has been modified because the setback has been changed due to some practical problems with Public Service and the proximity of the lot and some Public Service power lines and other conduits. Mr. Mascera stated as the Council has passed it on first reading and pursuant to the law the Planning Board now has to determine whether the proposed Ordinance is consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Mascera stated that this is not something that comes back to us under the municipal land use law but rather under municipal law so hopefully everyone has had time to review the resolution.

2 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 2. Mr. Mascera stated the change is essentially that the footprint of what is permitted moves back 5 feet away from the street. Mr. Mascera stated this portion of the redevelopment of the property has been before this Board before but now because it has been modified it has to be re-introduced therefore it is back before the Planning Board for a consistency determination with the Master Plan. Acting Chairman Kirby stated he believes it is consistent and asked for a motion. Motioned by Councilman Ryan. S/Mr. Mathewson. All in favor. Hearing of Developers and Applicants: Site Plan, DMH2, LLC, 176 and 200 Bloomfield Avenue, Block 8, Lots 1 and 23 Acting Chairman Kirby stated at the last meeting Mr. Dusinberre had a witness, Mr. Klein to testify about traffic and this evening Mr. Jemas and the applicant has their witness, Mr. Staigar to testify. Mr. Jemas stated they have Mr. Staigar to testify about traffic and also has Mr. Petry to present planning testimony in response to and a rebuttal of the expert, Mr. Klein of Mr. Dusinberre s clients. Mr. Dusinberre stated that a report has been submitted and he wants to go on record that he objects to its submission and did so in writing to both Council and the Board Clerk. Mr. Dusinberre stated that the report was dated May 15, 2015 and prepared by Mr. Staigar and he would like to know that the report will be excluded from the proceedings and not be given to the Board members. Mr. Dusinberre stated tonight is for rebuttal of Mr. Klein s testimony and not a redo of the direct testimony of the applicant s case. Mr. Jemas disagreed and stated that if anyone listed to the recording from the previous meeting he indicated he was bringing back people both for rebuttal of Mr. Klein and Mr. Steck Mr. Dusinberre stated that is fine but this is for rebuttal only and not to start a whole new direct examination on all the issues that were previously testified to and if you look at the report it says it is a written memorialization of testimony provided by Joseph Staigar. Mr. Mascera stated that this report has not been entered into the record nor circulated to the Board members. Mr. Jemas stated he was going to introduce and circulate the report and the reason being is that during the discussions with both Mr. Steck and Mr. Klein there was a great deal of discussion about all aspects of the traffic flow and at one point during Mr. Klein s testimony it was brought up by a Board member that normally they would get a report. Mr. Jemas stated if an issue comes up they go out and investigate it and present it to the Board and Mr. Staigar s report is a memorialization of the counts that he took that he testified to that weren t submitted in the form of a report and it actually supplements what he does but all of it is a response to the testimony of Mr. Steck and Mr. Klein.

3 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 3. Mr. Mascera asked if this report was prepared at Mr. Jemas s request. Mr. Jemas stated yes and it was prepared in rebuttal to Mr. Steck and Mr. Klein s testimony. Mr. Dusinberre stated his reasons for not agreeing to have this report circulated such as there being no mention of some of the issues that were testified to and this report is not a rebuttal. Mr. Mascera stated that Mr. Jemas is capable enough to go over the report without introducing it and is a non-issue as everything in the report will come out in Mr. Staigar s verbal testimony. Mr. Jemas stated ok and they will proceed without introducing the report and called Mr. Staigar. Mr. Staigar stated he listened to the recordings of both meetings that Mr. Steck and Mr. Staigar testified at and made certain determinations as to their comments and opinions as to traffic. Mr. Staigar stated he will leave Mr. Steck s testimony more to Mr. Petry from a planning perspective as a lot of his testimony overlapped with Mr. Klein. Mr. Staigar stated there were basically 7 points that Mr. Klein brought up in terms of traffic safety which he will go over. Mr. Staigar stated what the 7 issues are and gave his responses and referred to some of his previous testimony, he stated he will also defer to Mr. Petry on some of the issues. 1. The 4 parallel parking spaces along the front (are fully compliant with the ordinance and are 9x20.74 feet and there also is the availability of overhangs of parking on the 2 front spaces) parking spaces in the corners in the rear (are in compliance with the ordinance and he sees no safety concerns as they are at the ends of parking lot with no pedestrian traffic there and an average size car can maneuver easily with larger size cars and trucks maneuvering in a 3 point turn). 3. Driveway aliment in both vertical and horizontal (Mr. Klein prefers a 25 foot radius instead of the proposed 12 foot radius, however Mr. Staigar stated in his discussions with the County Engineer they would not allow a 25 foot radius and then a 24 foot opening and then another 25 foot radius which causes over a 70 foot curbcut along this frontage. It is in direct violation of their County standards which allows for only a 42 foot maximum curbcut at this location). 4. Vertical driveway aliment design (he will leave a lot of this to Mr. Petry but he has reviewed within the context of the transitions of going from almost level to the transitions of the grades up to 15% and reviewed in context of County requirements and standard engineering design which they are compliant but he will leave the rest to Mr. Petry). 5. Site Distance on Bloomfield Avenue (which on the site plan was drawn very conservatively by Mr. Petry, however there was a mistake on the drawing which Mr. Petry will correct on the site distance diagram line but they do comply with ASHTO, The American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials standards). 6. Sidewalk (meets ADA standards) 7. Loading and Refuse area (does meet and exceeds standards and there is enough room for a truck to load and unload)

4 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 4. Mr. Staigar stated in terms of Westview and Bloomfield Avenue intersections there is always a balance between parking spaces and site distance at driveways and there are as depicted on Mr. Petry s plan there is a site line that would go through parking spaces along Westview Avenue and you will find that situation up and down Bloomfield Avenue it s a balance that the Township has to determine of providing parking for property owners/users and site distance so you will always see that conflict. Mr. Staigar stated it would be an enhancement to remove those parking spaces but the detriment of removing them is that you don t have them anymore for the public so they would prefer to keep those parking spaces along Westview Avenue but they are not adverse for the Township to designate it no parking if it becomes an issue in the future but he does not see it becoming an issue given the speeds and the maneuverability at that driveway. Mr. Staigar does not believe it to be a safety problem. Mr. Staigar stated he has observed the traffic flow in the area on several occasions. Mr. Dusinberre asked Mr. Staigar about the benefit of the overhang spaces, designing parallel spaces, the parking spaces on Westview Avenue, leaving the site onto Bloomfield Avenue, the stop line, the sidewalk in front of retail stores, his visits observing traffic by Everett Field, the loading area and several other questions which Mr. Staigar answered. Acting Chairman Kirby asked if anyone from the public had any questions for Mr. Staigar. Jack McEvoy, 20 Montclair Avenue asked if ASHTO supersedes the town ordinance. Mr. Staigar stated no that the town ordinance is the law and ASHTO is design standards. Jim Lucas, 29 Hillcrest Terrace asked why Mr. Staigar didn t observe Everett Field during baseball games to see how it interacts with the site. Mr. Staigar stated he observed other operations of the field at other times and the only impact would be the traffic on Westview Avenue and he has seen that and he did observe pedestrian traffic and they have proper site distance and designed the driveway properly so it will operate as a safe driveway. Mr. Jemas called Michael Petry who stated that he was present for Mr. Steck s testimony and listened to the recording of the testimony of Mr. Klein. Mr. Petry stated in response to Mr. Steck s and Mr. Klein s previous testimonies that building setbacks along Bloomfield Avenue vary and to indicate that that is an unsafe condition would suggest to him as a professional that all of those buildings need to be vacated and torn down. Mr. Petry stated that he does not agree with Mr. Steck s position that buildings set back from other buildings pose a safety concern and Verona s ordinance recognizes this and sets a minimum front yard setback not a maximum. Mr. Petry noted for the record that Mr. Steck never offered a potential solution in his testimony however one simple solution would be to incorporate not a free standing sign but a directional sign out near the right of way which the Verona ordinance recognizes.

5 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 5. Mr. Petry talked about the 4 parallel parking spaces, the driveway grades and RSIS standards. Mr. Petry passed out to the Board and marked into the record Exhibit A-21, Site Plan Driveway Standards from Essex County submitted by Michael Petry dated 5/28/15. Mr. Petry stated all of what they have shown on their plans are in strict compliance with Essex County limitations and are well within standards for a driveway coming off an Essex County roadway. Mr. Petry stated regarding the ADA handicap access parking spaces they do not need the 2 foot overhang at that corner so that is compliant with RSIS and Verona ordinance and ADA standards. Mr. Petry addressed the loading area located in the rear and stated a full size vehicle can get out of those spaces without issue and they have created a loading area that exceeds Verona s ordinance. Mr. Petry summed up that they have provided testimony as well as the objectors and that Verona s Municipal Engineer, Fire Official, Police Department and Director of Emergency Management have all reviewed this application and no one has indicated that there is a safety issue with this plan and that s because there isn t. Mr. Jemas asked Mr. Petry to explain drawing the line in the wrong place by the driveway. Mr. Petry stated he drew a conservative line 14 ½ feet back from the curbline it does go through the wall but at the elevation of the driver s eye one can see over the wall if there is shrubbery in the way there and that shrubbery cannot be cut back at the top of the wall then the driver would have to move forward. Mr. Petry stated he believes the question was how far one would have to move forward and Mr. Staigar indicated they could move forward as much as an additional 8 feet in order to clear the wall and the shrubbery that are on that wall, therefore the driver s eye would have to move forward on the site 3 feet. Mr. Dusinberre asked Mr. Petry about where measurements were taken regarding the 4 parallel parking spaces especially ones that were less than 20 feet long. Mr. Petry stated the smallest was West of Park Avenue near the Richfield Regency, second smallest was just past the Verona Inn. Mr. Helb asked what was the point of this questioning as they should be focusing on the spaces and parking on the proposed site. Mr. Dusinberre asked Mr. Petry if he knew of other municipalities that have standards that are different between stall sizes for perpendicular spaces versus stall sizes for parallel sizes. Mr. Petry stated yes. Mr. Jemas asked if Mr. Dusinberre what is the relevance to other town s ordinance s. Mr. Lonergan asked if Mr. Dusinberre if he is questioning or going after the ordinance.

6 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 6. Mr. Dusinberre stated he is suggesting that the ordinance is silent on making a distinction between sizes of parallel and perpendicular spaces. Mr. Dusinberre asked Mr. Petry what has he found in other ordinances when a distinction has been made between parallel and perpendicular parking spaces. Mr. Jemas objected to the question. Acting Chairman Kirby stated he understands they have been looking up and down Bloomfield Avenue for other parallel spaces and one or two questions about other town ordinances but they should not be spending a lot of time or the whole night on discussing other town ordinances. Acting Chairman Kirby stated the standard is 20 feet in our ordinance which the applicant complies with which Mr. Dusinberre has a problem with. Mr. Dusinberre stated he does. Mr. Jemas stated if there is a problem with the Verona ordinance then it should be directed to the Governing Body not this Board. Mr. Petry stated in answer to Mr. Dusinberre s question yes he has seen other ordinances with parallel spaces that vary between 21 and 26 foot length requirements. Mr. Dusinberre asked about sidewalks, overhangs and curbstops. Mr. Petry addressed his questions and stated that the Verona ordinance does not have separate requirements for ADA spaces (American Disabilities Act) because they are governed by ADA documentation. Mr. Petry stated the ADA are not standards they are law. Mr. Petry stated ADA parking spaces are required to be 8 foot x 18 feet and this space is 8 foot x 18 feet without an overhang and it doesn t matter that the ordinance says a standard stall has to be 20 as and ADA space doesn t. Mr. Petry stated the 2 feet overhang is not required. Mr. Helb stated our standard isle width is 24 feet by ordinance and his standard is 25 feet and asked Mr. Petry if there is a concern about the pinch point can he move that whole curbline easterly 1 foot and pick up that 1 foot for having the minimum clearance and then comply. Mr. Petry stated yes they could and that would give another 3 inches on each parallel parking space. Mr. Jemas stated that the applicant indicated if the Board prefers that they will move that line. Mr. Jemas stated they will modify and increase the width of the curb and narrow the driveway to the 24 foot requirement. Acting Chairman Brown stated that the pinch point is no longer an issue.

7 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 7. Mr. Petry stated this will make the project less impervious. Mr. Mathewson asked what the clearance requirement above that ramp is. Mr. Petry stated 4 feet at top and it is 5. Acting Chairman asked if anyone from the public had any questions. Jack McEvoy, 20 Montclair Avenue asked about the directional sign as he knows they are not applying for a variance for a ground sign. Mr. Petry stated the ordinance allows for directional signs which are smaller than ground signs and there is a stipulation about where they can be placed in relation to the property line and if the Board were to impose as a condition it would go next to the driveway out near the right of way. Mr. McEvoy asked if it would be safer to put a ground sign there as the property next door is 4 feet higher than that sign. Mr. Petry stated if that is a concern this Board could put a condition as to where the sign should be placed for greater visibility. Acting Chairman Kirby asked if Mr. Petry has seen any other directional signs along Bloomfield Avenue. Mr. Petry stated yes and it is common on Bloomfield Avenue and is permitted in the ordinance without any Board approval. Acting Chairman Kirby asked if anyone else had questions for Mr. Petry, seeing none Chair asked if both sides have rested. Mr. Dusinberre stated he had. Mr. Jemas stated he had. Jessica Pearson, 20 Montclair Avenue stated as an interested party she would like to present 2 handouts which were from the NJDEP website to be put on record before any final comments. Mr. Mascera asked if it was law. Ms. Pearson stated it was. Mr. Mascera stated then the Board would take judicial notice of the law. Ms. Pearson stated she does not think the Board understands who is in charge of this law and that is the problem. Mr. Jemas stated Ms. Pearson was trying to present testimony. Mr. Longergan asked where we were procedurally and where does this come in.

8 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 8. Mr. Mascera stated that he is trying to accommodate Ms. Pearson but if this is simply highlighted law this is not the time nor can anyone submit a statue or regulation to read and go through what the law is. Ms. Pearson stated it was guidelines. Mr. Mascera suggested a break and he would look at to see if it could be submitted. Acting Chairman Kirby brought the meeting back to order at 10:10 PM. Mr. Mascera stated that Ms. Pearson had 2 issues and 1 was that she believes that the Board was not allowed to issue stormwater waivers because of certain criteria that she believes that the Township has not met. Mr. Mascera stated that he is going to review it prior to the next meeting and will give Ms. Pearson, Mr. Jemas and Mr. Trembulak his opinion after he looks into it. If Ms. Pearson is correct it will be addressed. Mr. Mascera stated the other issue is Ms. Pearson s questioning of Mr. Petry s methodology in computing the stormwater management calculations. Mr. Mascera stated Ms. Pearson can introduce that this evening and testify as to why those calculations were not done correctly. Mr. Jemas asked to be clear that if Ms. Pearson presents this evening she will not be presenting anything to the Board at the next meeting except to sum up. Ms. Pearson is sworn in and stated she has directions for the annual recharge worksheet and how to fill it out which comes from the New Jersey Stormwater Best Manage Practice Manual Chapter 6 and she does have it to hand out. Mr. Jemas stated that the Board is doing this even though the Board has previously voted on this. Mr. Mascera marked into the record Exhibit M-4, New Jersey Groundwater Recharge Spreadsheet (NJRS) Article dated April 2004 supplied by Jessica Pearson on 5/28/15. Acting Chairman Kirby stated to be clear that the Board has already determined that there is no recharge requirement with this application and by going through this now it is just information that would help make the determination in a subjective way. Mr. Mascera stated it is information that Ms. Pearson would like to present. Ms. Pearson stated in filling out this groundwater recharge statement that Mr. Petry handed out a few months ago he did not fill out the entire side of the pre-developed site and didn t represent the acreage in the post developed site that he had put in the pre-developed site. Ms. Pearson stated the way to fill out the spreadsheet is to represent 100% of the property in its pre-developed conditions and its post developed conditions in order to be able to provide 100% recharge on the site as its post developed that is the State law.

9 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 9. Ms. Pearson stated it talks about the land use and the land cover in both and says if you do not put the total area in the pre-developed as the post a warning message comes up which did come up on his spreadsheet. Ms. Pearson pointed out on the second page it shows the different land uses and lists gravel and dirt proving that gravel and dirt do provide a certain amount of recharge on a property. Ms. Pearson stated that Mr. Petry left off.62 acres off of his pre-developed site and as such he only has.93 as woods and.62 are missing from his pre-developed sheet as such the square footage of the area that is calculated for his recharge site is well undersized for what that site would require. Ms. Critchley asked if Mr. Petry s document was marked. Ms. Pearson did not remember the date. Mr. Jemas stated that they will represent that the document that Ms. Pearson has is part of Mr. Petry s report that was submitted to the Board that was considered by Mr. Dening and Mr. Helb in determining that the recharge is exempt. Councilman Ryan stated for clarification that Mr. Petry s document is Exhibit A-20, Letter, Report and Drawings from Michael Petry of Petry Engineering, LLC dated 2/13/15. Ms. Pearson stated that not only was the spreadsheet not filled out in its totality but it also comes up with too small an area to represent the proper amount of recharge that would have had to have occurred on the property had this Board not voted and she wants that on the record. Mr. Jemas asked Ms. Pearson if she was present when all this testimony came in regarding the recharge from Mr. Dening and Mr. Petry and did she ask questions and cross examine at that time. Ms. Pearson stated yes she was present and yes she did cross examine and ask questions. Mr. Jemas asked if she was present when Mr. Helb gave his opinion. Ms. Pearson stated yes. Mr. Jemas asked if she recalls that the applicant actually submitted a recharge program proposal to the Board if the Board wanted to do recharge and that Mr. Petry went out and did another study about the depths and testing. Ms. Pearson stated she remembers Mr. Petry doing a soil test. Mr. Jemas stated he did more than that which was about $20,000 worth. Mr. Jemas asked Ms. Pearson if she was an engineer or a lawyer. Ms. Pearson stated she is not an engineer or an attorney. Mr. Jemas stated at one particular point Ms. Pearson heard the Board consider the proposal by the applicant to do something with the recharge and then she heard the testimony or explanations by both Mr. Helb and Mr. Dening and then the Board voted unanimously that no recharge was required and asked Ms. Pearson if she was present for that.

10 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 10. Ms. Pearson stated yes she was. Mr. Jemas stated that was after exhaustive questioning of Mr. Petry by Mr. Dusinberre, Ms. Pearson and members of the public. Ms. Pearson stated her contention is that the validity of the numbers presented is not correct. Acting Chairman Kirby stated this is the conclusion of this part of the application and everyone has rested. Acting Chairman Kirby asked for a motion that the testimony portion of the application is closed. Motioned by Councilman Ryan. S/Mr. Lonergan. All in favor. Mr. Mascera stated that the next meeting should be the last meeting and people from the public can testify and the parties can summarize and then have a vote. Mr. Mascera asked if anyone would object to a Special Meeting on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 and if everyone can make it and if this application is not concluded at that time it would carry to the next regular Planning Board Meeting on Thursday, July 25, Mr. Jemas gave consent to extend the time. Acting Chairman Kirby asked for a motion to adjourn. Motioned by Ms. Collins. S/Councilman Ryan. All in favor. Respectfully Submitted, Noreen Dapuzzo, Planning Board Clerk

11