BOROUGH OF WESTWOOD ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES March 31, 2008 1. OPENING OF THE MEETING The meeting was called to order at approximately 8:00 p.m. Open Public Meetings Law Statement: This meeting, which conforms with the Open Public Meetings Law, Chapter 231, Public Laws of 1975, is a Special Meeting of the Westwood Zoning Board. Notices have been filed with our local official newspapers and posted on the municipal bulletin board. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Raymond Arroyo Dan Koch Guy Hartman Joseph Frasco, Vice-Chairman William Vietheer Eric Oakes Christopher Owens (Alt #1) Michael Bieri (Alt. #2) William Martin, Chairman ALSO PRESENT: David Rutherford, Esq., Board Attorney Louis Raimondi, Maser Consulting, PA Board Engineer David Spatz, Community Housing & Planning Associates, Inc., Acting Board Planner ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES None 5. CORRESPONDENCE: As listed on Agenda and read: 1. Letter dated 3/10/08 from Michael Miceli, Esq., of Gibbons P.C., RE: JP Morgan Chase;
2. Letter dated 3/17/08 from David Spatz, of Community Housing & Planning RE: JP Morgan Chase; 6. VOUCHERS: None 7. RESOLUTIONS: None 8. PENDING NEW BUSINESS: None 9. VARIANCES, SUBDIVISIONS AND/OR SITE PLANS, APPEALS, INTERPRETATIONS: SWEARING IN OF BOARD PROFESSIONALS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS The Board Professionals were sworn in 1. JP Morgan Chase Preliminary and final Site Plan and Variance Application David Spatz, Community Housing & Planning Associates, Inc. Acting Board Planner, appeared on behalf of Steve Lydon of Burgis Associates. David Rutherford, Esq. advised he received the Notices, Affidavits of Publication for the Special Meeting as well as Applicant s Affidavit of Service and Publication of Notice. Further, the applicant provided a check in the amount of $2,000. for escrow deficiency. Michael Miceli, Esq. represented the applicant and presented the applicant for two underutilized, undersized lots for construction of what would be a drast improvement planned by JP Morgan Chase for a bank and drive-through. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story, 808 sq. ft. bank building, with two drive-thorough windows on the vacant 15,000 sq. ft. site. John J. Lamb, Esq. represented the objector, First Westwood Realty, by Bruce Meisel, and raised procedural issues. In order to have a special meeting, there must be two notices. They previously entered their objections and are not waiving same. Mr. Rutherford advised the overhang does not require enhanced notice because nothing would change that condition. He does not consider Lot 3 to be part of this application and does not need to be calculated to be included in the 200. The other issue of a potential conflict of interests based on business relationships with the applicant, now that we have commenced the 2
hearing, we have determined that a member should not be disqualified because of a credit card or loan with Chase. Each Member disclosed the nature of any relation with Chase at a prior meeting, and he suggested that be done again. Each member was questioned as to whether they owned any stock in Chase, or had a credit card, or loan with Chase. (They either had credit cards or had a loan) It was determined that each member was qualified to vote, having met the criteria for being able to sit in on the application. Mr. Lamb represented First Westwood Realty, not a bank, and is included on the Property Owners List. Mr. Miceli called Paul W. Anderson, Site Engineer, of Cedar Grove, NJ, who was sworn in, qualified and accepted. Exhibit A- 1 was so marked, entitled Site Plan Exhibit, colorized, dated 12/3/07, known as SP3. Block 802, Lots 1 & 2, which was changed only for colorization and landscaping. They are proposing a bank, 808 sq. ft. with drive-up windows and an ATM. Variances are being sought for the drive-through, utilities and lighting. They designed it to be very pedestrian friendly, with a pocket park in front of the bank. They have a waiver for a loading space; they do not need a loading space. If something needed to be loaded they could go around back. It would be so infrequent. Two driveways, a two-way on Irvington and an exit only on Broadway. They did soil testing on site. A letter dated 12/3/07 from the Board Engineer was marked B1. They discussed the County s plan, including signalization. Chairman Martin stated many of the questions would be answered if the changes the County wants to make were on the plan. The Board would like to see how the plan is going to look and how the corner will function. Mr. Raimondi asked about utilities and suggested checking with the Borough Dept. of Public works to locate the sewer connections, and if located, they should be used. Board questions and comments followed. It was suggested any changes should be put on a revised plan. The 12/10/07 County Planning Board letter said no left turn onto Broadway. This would have to be confirmed by applicant. Further, Broadway would be widened 3 to align with the new curb line to the South. 3
Mr. Martin asked for a scenario of the vehicles ingress and egress. They will be coming down Irvington and turning right into the site. There will be a triangular island and reshaping of the curb lines. The vehicles would go around and queue and then drive out by making a right turn out. Mr. Martin commented there may be a safety issue with the cars exiting the ATM lane, making a right and not seeing cars in its blind spot. Also, there will be security cameras, and they are sensitive to pedestrian traffic. Mr. Spatz said a number of the questions they raised in their report have been addressed. With respect to the turnings, if the road is going to narrower, it will be quite difficult. Mr. Lamb cross-examined Mr. Anderson, stating he testified some of the 3 was going to be subject to widening. Mr. Anderson clarified the 3 and the curb line indicated by the light colored brick pavers. Mr. Lamb intensified his questions regarding the County, and Mr. Miceli responded the plan will be changed with this information. Mr. Lamb wanted to ask questions about the County s letter and wanted to ask questions directly concerning the credibility of the witness. Mr. Rutherford identified the letter as the 12/10/07 letter from the Bergen County Dept of Planning, by Erik Timsak, consisting of five pages. The Board suggested Mr. Lamb wait for the revised plans, which would answer many of his questions. Mr. Lamb questioned the circulation on site, as well as other details. Mr. Anderson testified the site, in its current state, was an underutilization of the property. It is one building lot and two tax lots. There were no questions from the public. The Board took a brief recess from 9:30 9:40 p.m. James Lalli, AIA, of JRS Architect, P.C., was sworn in, qualified and accepted. The plans prepared by him were marked as follows: Exhibit A2, entitled FP1, Floor Plan and Signage Details, dated 3/4/08. Drawing EL1, Exterior Elevations and Details, was marked Exhibit A3, dated 3/4/08. Mr. Lalli described the plans in detail. It is an aesthetically pleasing plan. A photo rendering was further displayed. Signage and street lighting were shown. Mr. Lalli reviewed the variances, referring to Exhibit A2. The larger sign facing Broadway is 30.9 sq. ft. and will require a variance for letter height. As 4
for wall signs, on EL1, the signs are 11 1 from grade to bottom of logo, and 11 6. Having it slightly higher will make it more visible. They also have monument and directional signage. They will get back on the size of the directional sighs. The benefits will substantially outweigh any detriment. He believes it will be an asset to the circulation on the site. A driver will see the bank and know how to navigate towards it. Mr. Lalli said there would be an armored vehicle and no loading vehicles. There will be security cameras within the bank itself and on the drive-through ATM. Questions by the Board followed. Mr. Raimondi asked what purpose the monument sign services, and Mr. Lalli responded it was for identification of the bank from Broadway. Mr. Spatz inquired where the refuse collector was located. Mr. Lalli explained. Mr. Martin asked where the directional signs would be. Mr. Lalli showed they would be at the entrance on Irvington and also where the queue lines begin. John R. Sorrenti, the principal of the firm, (JRS) signed and sealed the plans. Mr. Martin asked if any consideration was given to the surrounding area when creating the design and suggested something other than a flat roof to offset the signage. Mr. Lalli said they would work with the bank about reducing the sings, and the roof line. Mr. Martin noted there was a full service Chase Bank a few blocks away with substantially less signage and thought the signage might confuse people as to which building to go into. Mr. Lamb cross-examined Mr. Lalli. He referred to the Zoning Map in the Zoning Code. There were no questions from the public. The next witness was Greg Farnum, Licensed Engineer in NJ, Traffic Engineer, was sworn in, qualified and accepted. Mr. Farnun testified as to traffic circulation. The trip generation numbers are taken from the ITE, the Institute of Traffic Engineers. The volumes on the site are very low. Most will use the ATM exit on Broadway. In his opinion, 13 parking spaces were sufficient. He agreed with Mr. Anderson that three vehicles in each lane would be a busy time. This is not a heavy use. Even if there were six in each lane, they would be backing up on the site itself. Mr. Raimondi had no questions. Mr. Spatz commented all his comments in his report were addressed. Mr. Martin questioned the levels of service as set forth in the Traffic Report dated 10/11/07, prepared by Mr. Farnum. The 5
report stated that conditions at the signalized intersection of Broadway and Irvington Street are projected to continue operating at a Level of Service C or better. At the driveway, exiting movements would also operate at Level C, but the left turn movements from Broadway and Irvington Street are projected to operate at Level A. Also, larger signs are better for visibility. Directional signs are always good. It was 11:00 p.m., and Mr. Lamb inquired if it was an appropriate place to break off as he had substantial questions. Also, as a result of tonight s changes, he suggested having the applicant s traffic expert amend his report. Mr. Martin indicated the witness would have to return to be cross-examined. He further asked when they would like to be scheduled and if they needed a special meeting. They would carry to 4/7/08 and discuss a date at that time. The matter was carried to 4/7/08. 10. DISCUSSIONS: None 11. ADJOURNMENT On motions, made seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at approx. 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MARY R. VERDUCCI, Paralegal Planning Board Secretary 6