 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON
WARREN COUNTY
LAND USE BOARD
Municipal Offices 350 Route 57 West
(908) 689-7209 Washington, NJ 07882
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006
Vice Chairman E. Sodtalbers called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m.
ADEQUATE NOTICE was given as follows: Notice was sent to the “Star Gazette” and “Express Times.” Notice was posted on the municipal bulletin board in the township administration building in Washington Township, New Jersey and notice was filed with the Township clerk on December 23, 2005.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Mr. Howell, Mr. Sodtalbers, Mr. Klingel, Mr. Rossi, Ms. Pflugh, Mr. Iwaniszyn
Members Absent: Mayor Dempski, Mr. Strunk, Ms. Pietrangelo, Mr. Zaret, Ms. Belz
Also Present: Attorney S. Gruenberg, Engineer W. Gleba, Planner S. Doyle
CORRESPONDENCE: A list was provided to the board members.
COMPLETENESS ITEMS:
1. Bruce Apgar - WTPB#2006-4 - Completeness for a Minor Subdivision application for Block 17, Lot 6.01 & 6.01Q located at 39 Meadow Breeze Lane. Attorney L. Cohen represented Mr. Apgar. Mr. Cohen addressed Engineer W. Gleba’s report dated September 22, 2006 and Attorney S. Gruenberg’s letter dated September 27, 2006.
Attorney Gruenberg stated the board needs the township and the applicant to resolve the ninety day issue, until the issue is resolved how do you treat the application.
Mr. Gruenberg stated he didn’t feel it was this board’s responsibility or duty to determine whether there is still a settlement or not given the ninety day time period, the board needs the township and the applicant to resolve the ninety day issue. Mr. Gruenberg stated until it’s resolved the board doesn’t know how to treat the application. Mr. Cohen stated if the settlement is not perfected it would go back to court. Mr. Gruenberg stated until a decision is made by the township committee the board has to make a decision of how they should proceed. Mr. Sodtalbers stated he would prefer to wait to see what direction the township takes before we decide to do anything, Mr. Howell agreed.
The board agreed to wait for the township committee’s next meeting. Attorney S. Gruenberg announced the board has until November 8, 2006 on the application.
2. Martron LLC - WTPB#2006-12 - Completeness for a Final Site Plan application for Block 64, Lot 11 located at 283 Route 31 South. The applicant was represented by Attorney A. Lowcher. Mr. Lowcher addressed Engineer W. Gleba’s letter dated September 25, 2006 and waivers granted for completeness only.
A motion to deem the application complete with waivers granted for completeness was made by Mr. Iwaniszyn, seconded by Mr. Rossi, Vote: Iwaniszyn, Rossi, Howell, Sodtalbers, Klingel, Pflugh - Ayes, 0 - Nay, 0 - Abstain, motion carried.
CONCEPTUAL PLAN:
1. Quick Check - Conceptual presentation for a proposed Site Plan application for Block 23 Lot 12 located at 350 Route 57 West. Vice Chairman E. Sodtalbers announced quick check withdrew the request for a concept plan at this time.
DISCUSSION ITEMS & PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Hawk Pointe/Asbury Farms - WTPB#2006-2 - Continuation of a public hearing for a Preliminary Major Subdivision and Site Plan application with Variance relief for Block 65 Lots 2 & 4 and Block 65.02 Lot 1 located on Route 31 South.
Eligible to Vote: Howell, Sodtalbers, Klingel, Iwaniszyn, Pflugh, Pietrangelo. Board member Mr. Rossi stepped down for the application.
The applicant was represented by Attorney L. Tubman. Ms. Tubman stated the applicant would be addressing architecture and affordable housing this evening. Mr. David Ruggles of Toll Architecture and Mr. Richard Arsberger for the affordable housing design.
Ms. S. Bishop would be addressing COAH compliance and Mr. R.Pruznick of ARC.
Ms. Tubman stated the application is a “D” Variance and she would be seeking an enhanced vote if it is approved. Ms. Tubman stated she would make arrangements with the board secretary and a court reporter for a transcript for the absent board members.
Mr. D. Ruggles, Toll Architecture briefly reviewed his credentials for the board.
Mr. Ruggles stated his testimony would cover the seventy five proposed town homes.
Mr. Ruggles briefly reviewed the dimensions of the carriage homes and the exterior features.
Mr. Ruggles addressed exhibit A-4 the revised site plan and exhibit A-5 photograph of the front facade and exhibit A-6 rear view of units. Mr. Ruggles discussed the color and building materials to be used on the town homes. Mr. Ruggles stated the average median height will not be over thirty five feet taken from our worst case which is a walkout condition from a Unit, exhibit A-7. Mr. Ruggles reviewed the floor plan features of exhibit A-8 A-9 and A-10, A-11 alley loaded town homes and A-13, A-14, A-15.
BOARD QUESTIONS:
Mr. Ruggles gave a brief description of an alley loaded town home, a front loaded town home would mean the garage is in the front.
Mr. Sodtalbers asked if the town homes would look the same when you are driving by or are their alternating colors. Mr. Ruggles explained the differences within the units and the overall common theme within the buildings.
Ms. Doyle addressed her letter of September 25, 2006. Ms. Doyle asked if the descriptions are accurate in her letter, Mr. Ruggles replied yes.
Ms. Doyle asked if the heating and chimney ducts were the same, Mr. Ruggles replied yes.
Ms. Doyle asked if sheet three note is correct when referring to brick instead of stone,
Mr. Ruggles stated this was a drafting error it should be stone.
Ms. Doyle asked if the colors to be represented in terms of stone and siding and a stucco wash, Mr. Ruggles stated note twenty two will be removed from the plan.
Ms. Doyle recommended the board actually see the stone and the siding so it can be documented in the resolution, the plans should specify the color of everything.
Mr. Ruggles briefly explained mean height. Mr. Ruggles referred to exhibit A-11 showing the cultured stone fireplaces.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS:
Ms. L. Scovill of 5 Osprey Court.
Ms. Scovill asked if navajo white the same color that is currently on the buildings now.
Mr. Ruggles stated it would probably be close it may not be exact, reasonably similar.
Ms. J. Noonan of 7 Merlin Drive.
Ms. Noonan asked how many buildings would be alley loaded and how would they be divided. Mr. Ruggles stated they would be one six unit building, three five unit building and eight four unit buildings.
Ms. L. Scovill of 5 Osprey Court.
Ms. Scovill asked how the furnaces will be exhausted. Mr. Ruggles stated the furnaces would be exhausted at the first floor level.
Mr. F. Cregan of 62 Merlin Drive.
Mr. Cregan asked to see a rear elevation of the town house exhibit A-11, Mr. Ruggles stated he did not have a rear elevation of the town house.
Mr. Cregan asked if the Maplewood would always have the dormers as shown or will it be interchanged. Mr. Ruggles briefly reviewed the different designs.
Mr. Klingel asked if Mr. Ruggles could clarify what the back will look like, Mr. Ruggles reviewed the roof lines and bonus room locations.
Ms. Pflugh asked how many units were in the largest building, Mr. Ruggles replied six.
Mr. Ruggles reviewed exhibit A-12 showing the rear of the alley loaded units.
Mr. Ruggles concluded his testimony for the evening.
Mr. R. Arzberger, Architect and Professional planner briefly reviewed his credentials for the board.
Mr. Arzberger referred to exhibit A-3 site plan of the alley loaded town homes.
Exhibit A-16, A-17 and A-18 were submitted for the affordable housing units and reviewed.
Mr. Arzberger reviewed the unit access, square footage, elevation and building detail.
Mr. Arzberger stated there would be six two bedroom flats and one four bedroom group home with the first and second floor combined.
Mr. Gleba asked if the units would be sprinkled for fire protection, Mr. Arzberger replied no the units would have fire wall protection. Mr. Arzberger briefly reviewed the parking area and dumpster location and the proposed siding.
Ms. Doyle asked if there would be a craw space or basement, Mr. Arzberger stated they would be slab. Mr. Gleba requested Mr. Arzberger address the grading plans.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS:
Mr. F. Cregan of 62 Merlin Drive.
Mr. Cregan asked if there were any architectural problems with the design of the group home.
Mr. Arzberger stated
Mr. Arzberger stated there would be four bedrooms, the layouts were pretty much the same, the physical look of it would resemble two homes. End of public questions.
Ms. Tubman requested Mr. Arzberger explain the reasons for the “D” variance.
Mr. Arzberger reviewed the special reasons for the use of the stacked flat housing which requires a use variance. Attorney S. Gruenberg addressed the reasons for the positive and negative criteria per the municipal land use law.
Mr. Arzberger addressed the design of the coah units and how they created a building which would match the others.
Mr. Arzberger reviewed exhibit A-11a rendering of alley loaded town homes and the building detailing for Ms. Doyle. Mr. Arzberger concluded his testimony for the evening.
BREAK: 9:40 - 9:50 P.M.
Attorney L. Tubman presented witnesses Ms. Shirley Bishop and Mr. Robert Pruznick.
Attorney S. Gruenberg swore in the witnesses. Ms. S. Bishop as a licensed professional planner,
Ms. Bishop briefly reviewed her credentials for the board. Mr. R. Pruznick, executive director of ARC, Warren County chapter. Mr. Robert Pruznick briefly reviewed his credentials for the board.
Ms. Bishop provided testimony addressing the growth share obligation for Washington Township. Ms. Bishop stated the proposed project would require nine growth share units and Hawk Pointe is providing ten. Ms. Bishop stated there would be seventy five market rate units and eight affordable units, two will have four bedrooms and that is the group home component. Ms. Bishop stated the four bedrooms in the group home will receive four credits and addresses the rental obligation.
Ms. Bishop addressed Ms. Doyle’s letter dated September 19, 2006.
Ms. Bishop stated the growth share exceeds what is required. Ms. Bishop addressed the bedroom mix for coah. Ms. Bishop stated there would be an administrator to handle the age restricted coah units and group home. Ms. Bishop stated there would be thirty year deed restrictions on the age restricted coah units. Ms. Bishop stated that Hawk Pointe would exceed the required amount of coah units. Ms. Bishop stated that coah does not dictate the square footage of the units of minimum parking.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. F. Cregan of 62 Merlin Drive.
Mr. Cregan asked how would the group home operate during the day.
Mr. Pruznick stated the staff helps with cooking, hygiene, medical and daily guidance.
Mr. Cregan asked how is recreation provided, Mr. Pruznick stated the staff provides recreation and the special olympics.
Testimony was concluded at this time. Attorney S. Gruenberg announced the public hearing for this application would resume on October 11, 2006 without further notice being required.
2. Discussion on utilizing required anti-pay-to-play ordinances and regulations for Land Use Board professions. (Fair and Open Contract bids for 2007 professionals)
Vice Chairman E. Sodtalbers announced this item would be discussed at the October 11, 2006 meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment was offered 4
ADJOURNMENT: 10:40 p.m.
With no further business before the board and no further public comment offered the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Margaret Housman, Secretary
Washington Township LUB
