hillsborough township planning board public …district creates a split-lot zone that requires a...

HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES

October 14, 2010

Vice Chairman Conard called the Planning Board meeting of October 14, 2010 to order at 7:30 p.m. All stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. The meeting took place in the courtroom of the Municipal Complex. Vice Chairman Conard announced that the meeting has been duly advertised according to the Sunshine Law (Chapter 231, Open Public Meetings Act). ROLL CALL

Mayor Frank DelCore – Present Michael Merdinger – Absent Robert Wagner, Jr. – Present Steven Cohen, Secretary – Arrived 7:43 p.m. Greg Burchette, Chairman – Absent Arthur Stafford-Taylor – Arrived 7:36 p.m.

Sam Conard, Vice Chairman – Present Steven Sireci, Jr. – Absent Marian Fenwick – Present Douglas Tomson (Alt. #1) - Present Tod Mershon (Alt. #2) – Present

Also present were Robert Ringelheim, A.I.C.P., Township Planner; Eric M. Bernstein, Esq., Board Attorney (Eric M. Bernstein & Associates); William H.R. White, III, P.E., P.P., C.M.E., Board Engineer (Maser Consulting, P.A.); and Lucille Grozinski, C.C.R. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES October 07, 2010 A motion to accept was made by Ms. Fenwick, seconded by Mr. Mershon. Roll Call: Ms. Fenwick – yes; Mr. Tomson – yes; Mr. Mershon – yes; Committeeman Wagner – yes; Mayor DelCore – yes; Vice Chairman Conard – yes. Motion carries. ACCEPTANCE OF RESOLUTIONS None PLANNING BOARD BUSINESS None SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORTS None BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR None CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES

• Ordinance 2010-31 – An Ordinance to Amend the Zone Designation for Block 65, Lot 21 from R, Residential to I-1, Light Industrial

Robert Ringelheim, Township Planner, said the Township Committee introduced Ordinance 2010-31 at the October 12, 2010 meeting and referred it back to the Planning Board. A public hearing is scheduled for November 9th. In reviewing the Zoning Map, an inconsistency was found in the zone boundary that separates the R, Residential District from the I-1, Light Industrial District. This involves Block 65, Lot 21 which is located west of the Borough of Manville, south of the freight rail line and north of Camplain Road as shown on the map. This wedge-shaped piece is in the R District although it occupies the rear portion of a larger property in the I-1 District. The extension of the R District into the otherwise conforming I-1 District creates a split-lot zone that requires a ‘d’ variance for any further improvements. I believe the Board considered this rezoning at the last meeting and recommended this to the Township Committee for introduction. Open to the Public None Close Public A motion to refer Ordinance 2010-31 back to the Township Committee for adoption was made by Ms. Fenwick, seconded by Mr. Tomson. Roll Call: Ms. Fenwick – yes; Mr. Tomson – yes; Mr. Mershon – yes; Committeeman Wagner – yes; Mayor DelCore – yes; Vice Chairman Conard – yes. Motion carries. PUBLIC HEARING – SUBDIVISIONS/SITE PLANS

• Hillsborough Tennis Plus - File # 10-PB-09-SRV - Block 58, Lot 67 – Dickerson Road.

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES

October 14, 2010

2

Francis P. Linnus, Esq., said I am pleased to present Jun Li and Meng Zhang whose application is known as Tennis Plus. This is an application to establish an indoor recreation facility at a site located on Dickerson Road and East Dukes Parkway in the I-2 Zone. About 4 years ago this Board approved an industrial development, an HVAC construction facility for the property owner, Fraser. If we are approved tonight, the Board will be approving an indoor tennis facility. There are two variances required: lot depth and rear yard setback. Tonight we will present testimony from Bob Heibell giving you a background on what the proposal is; Ming Zhang, the owner and operator of the proposed facility will testify as to the operations; and Bob Heibell will return to testify as to the technicalities of the application, including the variances. We will also hear from Jay Troutman, our traffic consultant. Robert B. Heibell, P.E., P.P., & L.S., Van Cleef Engineering was sworn in and gave the following testimony: Exhibits: A1-ID– Color Rendering of the Proposed Site Plan A3-ID – Architectural Rendering of the Floor Plan A4-ID – Building Elevations Mr. Heibell said Exhibit A1 is a rendering of the proposed site plan showing the proposed tennis facility and access off of Dickerson Road, 32 parking spaces and the remainder of the lot. The property is on the southwest intersection of Dickerson and Dukes Parkway. The second exhibit, marked A3, is the architectural rendering of the floor plan. The third exhibit Ming Li will use is A4, the building elevations. Open to the Public None Meng Zhang was sworn in, introduced her husband, Jun Li and gave the following testimony in response to the questions asked by Mr. Linnus: My husband and I are the contract purchasers of Block 58, Lot 67. We are Hillsborough residents for the past 17 years. We have been teaching tennis for 8 years. We are passionate about the sport of tennis as well as other sports as part of an active lifestyle. We are not developers or builders. We would like to build and operate an indoor tennis and recreation facility that will offer year round tennis instructions and court availabilities to Hillsborough residents. The facility will also include a small pro shop. We would also like to offer other recreational activities such as a fitness center and fitness classes. In the future we would also like to have bus transportation for an after school program, pending feasibility and approval. As I told the Board at the May 13th concept review, there are many positive aspects to tennis, both physically and mentally to both children and adults. Currently Hillsborough residential have to travel out of town to play tennis. We would like to offer a year round tennis facility to make it a better town to live in. The proposed hours of operation are Sunday to Friday from Mid-May to Mid-September 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the rest of the year 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Saturday hours will be 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Deliveries will be small UPS type trucks. There will be no industrial trucks. We will have from 1 to 6 employees on site at any time of the operation. Mr. Linnus asked Ms. Zhang to review exhibit A4. Ms. Zhang said Exhibit A-4 shows the elevations of the building. The front of the building is the second drawing which fronts onto Dickerson Road. The rear of the building from the Bother’s property is the top drawing. The remaining two views are of the sides of the building. The architecture is that of a gabled steel building. We are flexible on the color of the building. There will be a 30 ft. wall sign, 8 ft. x 3 ¾ ft., on the front of the building over the door. It will not be lit internally but by shielded exterior lighting. There will be two freestanding signs, 3 ft. x 6 ft., one perpendicular to Dukes Parkway, the other at the entrance of the property. Both are in compliance with the Ordinance and will be properly set back so that there are no variances required. Mayor DelCore asked about the architectural layout for the building. Ms. Zhang said Exhibit A3 shows there will be 3 tennis courts on the southern side of the building, a 2-story office area on the northern side which will have a fitness center, locker room, office and mechanical room on the first floor. On the second floor a fitness studio, viewing area, a golf hitting cage and exercise game room. The windows are on the northern side of the building. There are no windows on the southern side where the residents are. Vice Chairman Conard asked about the color of the building.


October 14, 2010

3

Ms. Zhang said the colors of the building on the display are what we propose but we have heard other thoughts on it as well so we are flexible in terms of the color of the building. It will be a steel building. Ms. Fenwick asked how did you determine those particular hours of operation. Ms. Zhang said I did a survey of the local tennis clubs in the area. I looked at Warren Tennis Club, Courtside Tennis Club in Flemington, Hopewell in Pennington, Princeton Racquet Club in Princeton and Nassau Tennis Club in Montgomery. They all open around 6 – 6:30 a.m. and close around 11:00 p.m. during the week and midnight on Saturdays. The exception is Nassau Tennis Club closes at midnight every day. Mr. Mershon asked how do you plan to charge for playing. Ms. Zhang said the customary way to run a tennis club is either by membership to get contract time for the season or by the hour.

Rick Edelman – 20 Campbell Road

• Mr. Edelman asked where the air conditioning unit would be located. Ms. Zhang said the Environmental Commission reviewed our application on September 27th and that was one of the comments we received. We will have air conditioning for the office area. The AC will be ground mounted on the northern side of the building. For the tennis area we originally had two exhaust fans on both sides of the building. Since receiving that comment we decided to eliminate the fans on the southern side of the building and to have louvers only so they do not make noise. Instead we decided to add small side wall exhaust fans, 26 inches in diameter. The noise they make are very similar to window AC units.

Irma Jordan – 16 Dickerson Road

• Ms. Jordan said I am not directly affected but I do live in the development. The location you chose is not the best because it is on top of houses. Ms. Fenwick, I read something you said at the meeting of May 13th where you said something to the affect that it would be nice for the community to have. Do you have one in your development?

Ms. Fenwick said yes I do. I lived in a townhouse community and live right near the tennis courts, not a facility.

• Ms. Jordan said I do not understand how the Board could approve this application. We are going to stand on our decks and all you will be able to see is a steel building.

Mr. Linnus said there are a number of permitted uses in the I-2 District and this is one of them. We are not looking for a variance as to the use of the property. Otherwise, we would have to go to the Board of Adjustment.

• Ms. Jordan said I just wanted to make the comment that I think the Township is wrong. We already have enough on top of us with Ace Copy Systems. I just feel this is worse.

Nancy Guancione – 58 Campbell Road

• Ms. Guancione said we are concerned with the extra traffic this facility will bring into our neighborhood and the

risk it will bring to our children. Dickerson Road seems to be a highway as it is; people drive very fast on that road, especially between the stop signs. Is there any flexibility on the hours of operation or have they already been set?

Mr. Linnus said Ms. Zhang will answer your question on flexibility but our traffic consultant will address any questions on traffic. Ms. Zhang said the hours we have set are usual and customary. We are there to operate a business. In terms of traffic, there are measures we can limit disturbance to the neighbors. Robert B. Heibell put up Exhibit A2-ID – Exhibit Plan of Approved 2006 Site Plan and reviewed the following: At that time, my client Bill Fraser who is still the current owner of the property, we received approval for a warehouse facility for Mr. Fraser who owns Fras-Air. At that point in time, he was going to build a new facility in Hillsborough on this property. Since that time, Mr. Fraser has sold off the majority of the business and now lives in New Jersey and Florida. The property then went on the market with the current Applicant being the owner under contract. The access to the tennis facility is at the southeast corner of the lot in exactly the same location as it was approved on the Fras-Air application. The difference is we do not have the need for a lot of trucks and a warehouse which the 2006 approval did. With that approval there were actually two truck docs; one on the western portion and one on the northerly portion. There were also a greater number of parking spaces and a driveway that paralleled the southern property line,


October 14, 2010

4

which is the property line contiguous with the residences. We are now proposing the parking between the building and Dickerson Road with no driveway on the south side or west side of the facility. The application involves the 3 tennis courts and 2-floor office space at the northerly end of the building. That requires 32 parking spaces which is the number we propose. The application is serviced by sanitary sewer. We will need approval from the HTMUA before we connect to the service in the road which is actually maintained by the Borough of Manville. It then goes into the pump station at the corner of Dickerson Road and Dukes Parkway and flows by force main to the Borough of Manville. Any approval will need the approval of the HTMUA and the Borough of Manville. The applicant proposed to connect into the public water in the road. I actually started with this property with Mr. Fraser in the 1980’s prior to the wetlands coming into view. I came back to it in 1994. At all times Amy Green was the environmental consultant. We are exempt from the wetland buffers as we were in 2006. However, a condition within the NJDEP approval is that if I come back with a different type of use, this application would no longer be exempt from the wetland buffers. We will abide by the wetlands and wetland buffers. The second issue is that over that period of time, New Jersey had higher flooding. There was a downstream condition in Bound Brook and Manville. NJDEP raised the flood level in this area by slightly over 3 ft. The elevation of where the 100 year flood has gone up. This application will abide by the higher elevation. We will need to go to NJDEP for a permit to put the outlet from the detention basin into the flood hazard area. Any approval would be subject to getting a Flood Hazard Permit from NJDEP. We received a number of reports from the professionals. I will first start with the Fire Marshal’s comments. He wants several things on the building which we will abide by in totality in his report. However, one of his concerns is that the singular30 ft. entrance be blocked by a fallen tree. He has asked us to provide an emergency access easement and suggested it be placed at the northern portion of the parking lot at Dickerson. At that point, the ground goes down 7 to 8 ft. and is in the flood plane. I would not receive a permit to go into that location. Mr. Weniger also said he is concerned of a fire happening with no blockage of the entrance. Once the fire truck goes into the parking lot there would be no turn around causing the fire engine to have to back up onto Dickerson. We have come up with a potential alternate which Chris Weniger would accept. We would put grass pavers around the northern portion of the building and try to connect into the adjoining driveway on the Bother’s property. As of this afternoon we have a verbal agreement in principal. Two of the members of the Bothers’ family are here tonight. That means there are four attorneys involved who have not yet all blessed it although the principals have. It would be beneficial to both parties. If the Bothers’ property were ever to go into a different type of use, which the property is on the market, Mr. Weniger would also suggest they have an emergency access easement. The Bothers’ property is currently on a septic system. If there is an agreement, the Bothers have asked us to provide a sanitary sewer easement in case they need sanitary sewer in the future. Their septic system is working fine but they cannot get out to Dukes Parkway because there is no sanitary sewer there but they are in the sewer service area. They have asked us to provide a 10 ft. wide sanitary sewer easement just north of the property line. One of the aspects of the plan is that we have provided a buffer along our southerly property line. Mr. White has asked we provide that buffer within a 30 ft. conservation easement which the Applicant is willing to do. The sanitary sewer easement will not infringe on that. Once the agreement gets reviewed, blessed by the four attorneys and signed, which I believe it will, then the Applicant and the Bothers, will jointly in some fashion, build the fire lane. If for whatever reason that agreement in principal cannot be fulfilled then the Applicant will build the fire lane up to the Bothers’ property line which will be about 25 ft. away from the existing driveway and in turn the Applicant would not be receptive to granting a sanitary sewer easement. This would be a grass fire lane, not pavers so it does not add to our impervious surface. Mr. Weniger likes this idea. A recreational facility is certainly and allowed use in the I-2 Zone. The minimum lot area in the I-2 Zone is 2 acres. The property has 3.6 acres however; a good portion of the property in front is encumbered by wetlands and a flood plane. This application requires 2 bulk variances. They are essentially the same two as previously approved with the Fraser application, although in different magnitudes. Because this is a corner lot you have to look at which of the roads the driveway comes out of. Since it is impossible to get a driveway through the wetlands, the only possibility was through Dickerson Road. The Ordinance requires a lot depth of 300 ft.; we have 158 ft. This is the same variance sought and granted in the past. The adjoining property is built upon so there is no land to be acquired. The line along the westerly yard is the rear yard. If it were turned the opposite way it would be the side yard. In this zone the rear yard is 100 ft. That means this building would have to be 100 ft. from Bothers’ property line. It is proposed to be 20 ft. from Bothers’ property line. The second variance is the distance between the Bothers’ property line to the back of the tennis facility. The distance on the prior approval was about 60 ft. The difference is it was not for additional grass; it was for a truck loading area and driveway that went around the building. The Bothers’ property is also zoned I-2. Mr. Ringelheim asked what the reason is that the building cannot be moved closer to Dickerson to make it more conforming. Mr. Heibell said we have the environmental restraint which parallels Dickerson and need the parking to be in between the building and Dickerson. The tennis court has a depth need of 120 ft. which is the depth of the building. The need for the variance is caused by the use and type of building they are putting on the property.


October 14, 2010

5

Mr. Ringelheim asked Mr. Heibell to address why the parking has to be in the front and not on the north side of the building. Mr. Heibell said there are 50 ft. and 60 ft. setback (shown on display) which are in accordance with the Ordinance. In order to have 3 tennis courts 60 ft. x 120 ft. you have a building length of 190 ft. With that in mind, the flood plane and buffers are on the northerly side of the building. Mr. Stafford-Taylor asked what is the net lot size if you subtract out all of the critical areas. Mr. Heibell said I tend to think it is not a requirement but if you do it, it comes out to about 2 ½ to 3 acres because with this type of critical area you get ½ credit for. Mr. Ringelheim said those critical areas only apply to density calculations for residential. Mr. Heibell continued. Mr. White has issued a report dated October 07, 2010. We have discussed some of the comments with his office and I can tell you that we will comply with each and every one of his comments. We have received approval from the SCPB. Mr. White asked about his comment #8 on page 6 of his report with regard to the height of the lights. Are you requesting a design waiver for that? Mr. Heibell said it looks as though it will be 15 ft. high. They measured it to the top of the pole, not to the light source so it will comply. There is a waiver requested on the parking stalls. The parking spaces are 18 ft. in depth and 10 ft. wide. They either all overhang the grass area or onto a 10 ft. wide sidewalk. I always feel it is better to make the sidewalk wider with the available 2 ft. overhang. The aisle will be 30 ft. wide since we have the emergency access. We are not picking up any more impervious surface; we are just increasing the sidewalk and decreasing the pavement. We have an unconditional approval from the SCPB dated September 9th. We were at the Environmental Commission on October 11th. We reviewed the entire application. One of their concerns about the air conditioning units was already reviewed by the Applicant. They will be placed on the north side, not the south side. One member had asked about the north side of the property. We will not be selling any portion off but will be placing a conservation easement in the area previously described. We have an unconditional approval from the Somerset-Union Soil Commission dated September 29, 2010. The HTMUA has reviewed the application. Their only comment is that it goes into the Borough of Manville for which we will need to seek their approval should the Board approve this application. The stormwater drainage system is similar to what I did for Ace Copy across the street. There is a series of pipes underneath the pavement which will be slightly modified in accordance with Mr. White’s report. There will be a pipe which will have a head wall which goes into the wetlands which will require the permit I spoke of earlier. Vice Chairman Conard asked for clarification on the conservation easement. Mr. Heibell said we are proposing to put a conservation easement on the front of the property, contiguous with the residential property line, 30 ft. wide along the entirety of the property with the appropriate signage. Mr. Ringelheim asked Mr. Heibell to speak about the height of the light source. Also, the buffer on the southerly side next to the residents which was a subject of extensive discussion at the Fraser application. There was a berm with plantings and fencing along the property line with the Fraser application. I would like to see a similar buffer created with this application. Mr. Heibell said the light fixtures will be in compliance with the Ordinance. In anticipation of your comments, we tried to do a good job with the landscaping. The Environmental Commission liked the design they just did not like the species. Mr. White did not make a request in his report to change the species but we are flexible in this regard as far as species and the quantity. I do not remember a fence on the Fraser application but if you say there was a fence I do not doubt you. Board members concurred there was a berm, fence and trees in the buffer. Mr. Heibell said certainly the Applicant would be willing to place a fence in the same way as the Fraser application. Mr. Stafford-Taylor asked to first find out if the neighbors would be ok with a fence there. Mr. Heibell pointed out the Fraser application was for a different type of use. The neighbors were concerned about children wandering onto the property with the trucks driving in between the building. We do not have that situation in the back with this application. Mr. Stafford-Taylor asked about the previously proposed stormwater management system with the Fraser application.


October 14, 2010

6

Mr. Heibell said I could not get that design approved today. We did soil logs underneath the parking lot and in the area you mentioned. With the current regulations, the groundwater is at a depth that I could not design it and get it approved. There is no basement designed for this building. We did two soil logs within the building footprint so I can produce that information and know the depth of the groundwater. We will be about 4 ft. above the groundwater.

Paul Candon – 24 Campbell Road

• Mr. Candon said I have the unfortunate situation of having my property back up to two industrial lots where the Bothers’ and this property meet. I have a problem with the 20 ft. setback since it is in my backyard. When I look out every window there is only 70 ft. between the two buildings which should be 150 ft. Is it typical for you approve something that is 80% shy of the setback?

Mr. Heibell said I will measure your house. I do not believe the numbers are the same. Lot 72.05 is showing as 45 – 50 ft. from the Fraser property line. The closest corner of our building is another 50 ft. away. The requirement for a side yard setback is 100 ft. which is what we have.

• Mr. Candon said that is correct but the back yard is supposed to be 100 ft. I actually have a problem with the zoning of this area. The most depth this area has is 290 ft. The setback from Dickerson should be 300 ft. By code, he should be building on the property next door. This is a residential area and it is being over developed. If they had the space I would not have anything more to say. I believe you only have 20% of the rear setback and 52% of the front so out of a total setback of 400 ft. you have less than 45% of the total area that is supposed to be surrounding the building. My second issue is with the drainage for this site. The underground detention basin is crossing the New Jersey Flood Hazard Line. Will that increase or decrease the flooding in the area?

Mr. Heibell said we have designed the basin in accordance with the regulations but once again, we need approval from NJDEP. Not only did we get the review of the Municipal Engineer but we also need the approval from NJDEP. The drainage does not flow towards your dwelling. The amount of retention in the underground detention basin is such that the rate of runoff is no greater than that which occurs to start with. It is actually reduced.

• Mr. Candon asked do you know how far up Dickerson the flood waters came up during Hurricane Floyd because I know there are a lot of people here who do.

Mr. Heibell said NJDEP has established a flood elevation which has been raised about 3 ft. If I were to go back to the 1980’s and 1990’s it used to be about elevation 46. They have increased the elevation to 49.2. On this particular site I did not have to determine what the elevation is; NJDEP already has determined what the elevation is.

• Mr. Candon asked have you ever designed something like this that sends the water from an underground detention basin off towards wetlands across the NJ Flood Hazard line.

Mr. Heibell said I believe permits will be granted for this. We have experience with this type but each site is slightly different. If we did not think DEP would give us a permit then there would be no sense of being here tonight. If this application does not receive the approval of the NJDEP then there is no approval; the Planning Board approval would be void.

• Mr. Candon said it strikes me as a bad idea. Mr. Tomson asked how long this has been zoned I-2. Mr. Heibell said for as long as I have been working on for Mr. Fraser in the 1980’s. The first time I can here there was not a single person here because none of those houses existed. When I came in the 1990’s when they were starting to build Courtland but no residences, there still was no one in the audience. When I came back in 2006 we had standing room only because the houses were there. In this case, Courtland built fairly narrow in depth lots and placed houses against industrial property. I understand the concerns of the residents but the property has been zoned I-2 since Courtland ever came into perception. Mr. Ringelheim said the Zoning Ordinance says that the I-1, I-2 and I-3 Zones were all established in 1982.

• Mr. Candon said it is my understanding that this lot was part of the Bothers’ lot next door. In reading the paperwork I believe Bothers bought it in 1973 and then subdivided it and sole it to Fraser sometime in the 80’s. Along with that came the zoning. Does the property get re-evaluated for the appropriateness for the area when it gets subdivided?

Mr. Ringelheim said a subdivision does not trigger a rezoning.


October 14, 2010

7

• Mr. Candon said so no one zoned this specific piece of property I-2. It was already zoned I-2 as part of the property next door, before the residences came in behind it.

Mr. Cohen said you are asking us to make an assumption about something that happened 30 years ago. We would have to look at the Master Plan at the time. Mr. Ringelheim said zoning does not necessarily take into account subdivisions or lot sizes in all instances. It is more of setting a use in an area.

• Mr. Candon said I understand what you are saying but if the zone requires a certain number of feet that the lot does not even come to, it strikes me that the zoning is inappropriate, in addition to the fact that this building is inappropriate.

Mr. Stafford-Taylor said the environmental laws were entirely different back then. The critical areas now, even in the past couple of years changed to the point where it is making less and less of that lot buildable. When it was subdivided it probably did not have the same flood zone and buffers that are required today. Mr. Ringelheim said you cannot rezone every time there is a subdivision and then go back to every lot in town and say it has to be rezoned because there is a lot that does not meet the requirements. That is why you have the opportunity to get a variance.

Rosanne Aragona – 60 Nostrand Road

• Ms. Aragona said I am the President of the Homeowner’s Association in Courtland. I would like to remind everyone that the water table in that area is very high. Back when we had Hurricane Floyd, the water came up Dickerson, very close to where the driveway is for this property. If you are going to start putting water back into underneath where the wetlands are, when that river rises where is the water going? We had the same problem back in 2007 with the Nor’easter. None of the people in Courtland could get out. Now we will have impervious coverage over that land. Where is the water going to go but back up to our homes?

Mr. Heibell said once again, the water is detained and it is designed in accordance with the DEP regulations. The elevation of where the underground detention basin is is actually higher than the established 100 year flood plane. It is constructed outside of the flood plane and releases water back on the surface. The purpose is to detain the water. They keep making the regulations stronger and stronger and we keep designing in accordance with the current regulations. So once again, my statement is that we will submit it to DEP. They will thoroughly review it and would need to grant us a permit.

• Ms. Aragona said my feeling is that when we have a really bad storm the water has nowhere to go because all of Dickerson and Dukes Parkway East gets flooded.

Mr. Heibell said you are absolutely correct in that regard. The flooding does come up a portion on Dickerson and it does flood Dukes Parkway. I know the 182 houses have a back door on Green Street in Manville and that is how you get out. I have told my applicants that.

• Ms. Aragona said I am just hoping that when this does go through that our homes are not impacted by the next storm that comes through.

Jay Troutman, P.E. of McDonough and Rae was sworn in, qualified and gave the following testimony in response to Mr. Linnus’ questioning: My firm prepared the Traffic Study Report for the Applicant. We have actually been studying traffic and have obtained data on Dickerson Road since 2004. For this study we again went out and updated the data in the June, 2010 report. The data is not substantially different. There are very typical flows from the residences and one business there. The proposed use is very similar to other tennis facilities. A facility near me has 6 tennis courts and 48 parking spaces which works out to be 8 spaces per tennis court. Looking at some other parking standards for these uses in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the average peak parking is 4 spaces per court. This site is proposing almost 11 spaces per court so in terms of parking, I feel the plan and the Ordinance which requires the 32 parking spaces is very generous and will provide more than adequate parking. This facility will not generate a significant increase in traffic to the area. It will have a similar volume to the approved Fraser building except the character of the traffic is more neighborly being that it will have more passenger cars vs. trucks and industrial type vehicles. We analyzed the capacity of Dukes Parkway and Dickerson Road and found there will not be a significant change in the levels of service for vehicles turning in and out of that intersection. We will comply with both of the comments in the Maser report regarding vehicle turning paths for emergency vehicles which was addressed earlier and the sight triangle easements.


October 14, 2010

8

I do not see the hours of operation being a problem since it is a fairly light flow during most hours of the day. The hours we focused on were weekday afternoons, rush hour, perhaps when there will be activity after school at the property, and on Saturday. Mr. Mershon said there is ample parking for the tennis courts but there is also going to be a fitness center as well. What are the plans for the fitness facility? Ms. Zhang said it is a small gym with cardio and strength training. Mr. Troutman said I reviewed the architectural plans and talked with the Applicant. The gym is a very small operation in terms of parking demand. They will not be offering large classes. It is set up more for personal training so you would not have a significant number of people. Mr. Stafford-Taylor asked what the capacity of the gym is. Ms. Zhang said in terms of capacity, I do not know what the regulation is in terms of square footage. Mr. Ringelheim asked how many machines will you have that people could use at once. Vice Chairman Conard said the Board is looking to see if you are going to have something like Jazzercise classes where you might have 50 people coming at one time. We are looking for some kind of numbers. Ms. Zhang said there are less than 15 machines. I imagine there will be 6 to 10 people per class. Mr. Stafford-Taylor asked how many people do you think will be in the gym during prime time hours. Ms. Zhang said I would assume 10 to 12. Mr. Stafford-Taylor asked Mr. Troutman how it would impact the traffic if the tennis courts were at maximum capacity, plus the fitness center, plus employees. Mr. Troutman said if you were maxing out all of the uses, you would probably be maxing out the parking. Mayor DelCore asked is there enough visibility for someone coming out of the lot and still see if someone is making a left or right off of Campbell. What is that distance? Mr. Troutman said there is. The driveway is almost identical in terms of location to the previously approved plan. The distance is about 40 ft. from the property line to the driveway and about 100 ft. plus to that intersection. I do not believe parking is allowed on Dickerson.

Irma Jordan – Dickerson Road

• Ms. Jordan said I thought I read something about parking on Dickerson in the plans. Mr. Troutman said we are not proposing parking of Dickerson.

• Ms. Jordan said then there will never be parking on Dickerson. There are two houses on the end that park there every now and then and it is hazardous when we come onto Dickerson. But I will not have to worry about that, right?

Mr. Troutman said that is right.

Nancy Guancione – Campbell Road

• Ms. Guancione asked how do we prevent people coming into our neighborhood. We do not want people coming in past the tennis court. Can the Township put a NO OUTLET sign up? I know there is one when you enter Dickerson from Dukes Parkway but can another be put up? We do not want these people coming into our neighborhood thinking there is a way to get out. We are worried about the kids and want to keep the traffic out of there.

Mr. White asked Mr. Troutman if there could be an EXIT sign in conjunction with the STOP sign. The EXIT sign would not say left turn but would have a left arrow directing them back to Dukes Parkway. It would be an informational sign, not a directional sign. Mr. Troutman said yes.


October 14, 2010

9

Ron Guancione – Campbell Road

• Mr. Guancione said my concern is the number of parking spaces and the potential for street parking if there are overflow issues. I can tell you the people that live on the corner of Dickerson and Campbell always park on Dickerson. Under those circumstances, pulling out of Campbell onto Dickerson is a nightmare since it is a blind corner. I tell my kids when they are riding their bikes to never cross the street at Dickerson and Campbell. I am not exaggerating; it is a very dangerous intersection. I am worried about the additional traffic and the possibility of parking on Dickerson.

Mr. Linnus said we have concluded our presentation. Vice Chairman Conard asked if the color of the building could be changed to an earth tone. Ms. Zhang said we have heard a lot of suggestions to have earth tone colors. The earth tones are actually more energy efficient and exceed energy star requirements and LEED requirements. We are flexible so earth tone colors are good to us.

Rick Edelman – Campbell Road

• Mr. Edelman said when I first heard about the tennis club I thought it was a good fit but the more I hear the less I think so. It seems so oversized and so close to the residential property that I do not think it is appropriate for that sized lot. I am glad the air conditioning will be on the northern side to minimize any noise. Hearing this is a metal structure it sounds like it is going to cause some radiant heat. I am also concerned with lighting and the hours of operation. I understand the lights will stay on one hour after closing so that means they will stay on until 1:00 a.m. Saturday into Sunday and 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 a.m. during the week, depending on the season. Anything that could be done to lower or dim the lights would help. I am concerned that the roots of the trees going into the storm sewer pipes and possibly causing flooding.

Mr. Heibell said the sewer I spoke to is a sanitary sewer, not a storm sewer but the tree roots will not be in the easement so they are not going to flood your property. The sanitary sewer easement we would grant, if there is an agreement, would be beyond the 30 ft. conservation easement. Although it looks from this scale like it will be in the treed area, it will be north of the conservation easement. There is no spillage of lighting onto any of the residential properties. They do meet the minimum foot candles within the Township Ordinance. They will all go off one hours after closing. I am not an expert on radiant heat. Vice Chairman Conard asked Mr. Edelman if he would like to see a fence and trees.

• Mr. Edelman said I think I brought up the fence last time. There is a fence that ends behind 24 Campbell in my neighbor’s backyard behind the Bothers’ property so I would like to the same type of wooden fence to block the view from one side to the other.

Vice Chairman Conard said as I understand it now, we have a 2 ft. mound with trees and a fence there. Mr. Heibell said there is no fence currently on the plan but the Applicant could propose the same fence was previously approved that the resident requested four years ago. I do not recall that a fence was approved but I am not saying it wasn’t. Whatever fence you may want, they are open to, even if it was not previously approved. We would just need direction from the Board as to the type and height of the fence. Mr. Ringelheim said I recommend that the fence not only extend along the common property line but wrap behind the building so that the people who live on this side have some privacy if there is not already one there on the Bothers’ property. Mr. Stafford-Taylor said there is already a fence going westward.


• Mr. Guancione asked hypothetically speaking, what happens if all of the parking spots are taken up and there is overflow parking onto Dickerson. What are the measures the residents of Courtland can take to prevent that from happening? There is not a sign on Dickerson that says NO PARKING.

Mr. Ringelheim said that is a Township road but I do not have the information in front of me to know if parking is not permitted. If it isn’t we could recommend to the Township Committee that no parking be established along section of Dickerson and then they could authorize the Police to post signs. Mayor DelCore said we can definitely take a look at making that a no parking area.


October 14, 2010

10

• Mr. Guancione said the people that live there should be able to park by their house but from the driveway toward

Dukes, there should be no parking. Mayor DelCore said we will take a look at that and if it is not already in place we will bring that up at a Township Committee meeting.

• Mr. Guancione said I appreciate that. The proposed facility looks like a beautiful facility, minus the color and I do not doubt the Applicant’s passion for tennis or wanting to make Hillsborough better. I just think we are trying to fit a facility on a parcel of property that really is not appropriate. I am not looking for the property to be rezoned or stop someone from building on it if it is appropriate but I think I speak on behalf of a lot of the residents when I say the building is just too big for that piece of land.

Paul Candon – Campbell Road

• Mr. Candon said the 8 ft. wooden stock fence ends just east of my property, Lot 72.05. If this is going to go through I would like to see some additional trees and landscaping added on the western side. The decks of our houses at 24, 26 and 28 look right over that. I do not know what that is going to do to our property value but it is not going to go up. I would appreciate it if something could obscure the view going west on Campbell. Also I think something that is open from 6:00 p.m. to midnight drastically changes the type of area it is. The industrial lot across the street is open 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and no one notices them. This stands to change the type of neighborhood it is.

Eileen Glaser – 18 Kilmer Road

• Ms. Glaser said I would like to say on behalf of all of the tennis player who have to travel to other communities, I

think Hillsborough needs a tennis facility and am surprised it does not already have one. I think it would be great for the community. Tennis players are not rowdy. I am in support of this application.

Joe Caruso – 57 Campbell Road

• Mr. Caruso said you did some comparisons with other tennis facilities such as Nassau and Princeton. All of those

facilities are not in residential areas, they are in commercial areas. I do not think this application fits where you are trying to put it.

Mr. Stafford-Taylor reminded the public that the previous approval was an industrial warehouse facility that had trucks coming and going.

Stephen Nagy – 17 Campbell Road

• Mr. Nagy said I did not know five years ago that I was buying into a community that is going to be more commercialized. The residents are not so technical to understand all of the testimony. I take my son to East Brunswick to play tennis but that does not mean I want to have the facility with these types of variances at the cost of the residents of the Courtland community. I ask the Board members to approve something that is appropriate for that land. Why can’t this property be rezoned?

Sandy Sang – Gemini Drive

• Ms. Sang said I think it is wonderful that we are going to have an indoor tennis court for the winter because there

are a lot of kids who play tennis in this area. I know there are a lot of issued for the people here and I hope we can help them out because I think it would be a great thing for the Township.

Mr. Patel – 22 Campbell Road

• Mr. Patel asked can we propose speed bumps or something to slow down traffic.

Mr. White said that question would not be for this Board; that is for the Township Committee.

• Mr. Patel asked is there a noise provision on this steel building? Vice Chairman Conard said my understanding is that the entire building is insulated. You should not hear a thing.

• Mr. Patel asked can we have high trees planted as a buffer.


October 14, 2010

11

Vice Chairman Conard said as I understand it there are already trees that are to be planted there. Mr. Heibell said the height of the tree depends on the species; we have not just chosen one type of tree. Some are 3 in. caliper trees when you plant them. They are deciduous trees. Some will be evergreen trees. I heard the comment about an 8 ft. high fence. Personally, I would not do that, nor would I ask for the fence. Rather than the fence, my comment would be to do a vertical evergreen row right along the property line which in my opinion is much more appealing than looking at the back of an 8 ft. fence. We can do that if the Board would like instead of the fence. Vice Chairman Conard said I want the neighbors to be happy so whatever satisfied them would satisfy the Board. Mr. Ringelheim asked if the row of evergreens would also be supplemented by a berm and plantings. Mr. Heibell said I am not proposing taking away any of the trees right now. I am just suggesting that rather than place an 8 ft. high wooden fence, we can plant so that it makes a permanent hedge of a species the deer would not eat. We can get some type of cedar that Mr. Ringelheim and Mr. White approve.


• Mr. Guancione asked are the trees towards the wetlands going to be eliminated. Mr. Heibell said we are not touching them.

• Mr. Guancione said it was important for us to have a pool in our house. Before buying I called the Engineering Department about the block and lot and was told we would not have a problem putting a pool in. Two years later we needed a variance on top of variance and I could not get a 3 ft. variance. What fits in that parcel should fit within what the proposed guidelines are. You are talking some serious changes in variance with this application. I think a building that fits on this parcel would be perfect but this is just too big.

Ms. Nicole – Hillsborough Resident

• Ms. Nicole said I am in favor of the tennis facility. I think it will be a good thing for Hillsborough. I have been

taking my kids to Montgomery for so many years to play tennis. It will be so nice for my kids and other kids. This will give more opportunity to prepare for the high school tennis team. This helps to make Hillsborough a more active community.

Anabelle Suarez – 1231 Orchard Drive

• Ms. Suarez said I hope this proposal will pass. I believe it will be an asset to future generations and a good

investment for our community.

2 more unnamed residents spoke in favor of the application.

Vice Chairman Conard said I would like to resolve the issue of the fence. Mr. Stafford-Taylor said in looking at the plan there are at least 4 or 5 residents who are immediately impacted. Are those residents all here? Vice Chairman Conard said I would like to hear from the two residents here tonight before this Board moves on.

Rick Edelman – 20 Campbell Road

• Mr. Edelman said I wanted a fence to prevent kids from cutting through my neighbor’s properties but I am not certain that will happen. I would like to talk to Mr. Heibell more if there is an opportunity. The fence that is on the Bothers’ property has aged really well and does not seem intrusive to me. I think that fence is appropriate there because it is more of an industrial use.

Vice Chairman Conard said we just want you and your neighbors to be happy. Mr. Stafford-Taylor said you can have a 3 ft. fence which would prevent the issue of kids cutting through and still not give you the prison wall look. Then you could have screening trees along the property line side of the fence.

• Mr. Edelman said that sounds good.


October 14, 2010

12

Mr. Stafford-Taylor reiterated, I am just going by what was said earlier that there would be a 2 ft. berm, a 2 to 3 ft. fence and then the screening vegetation which would prevent the problem and not give the demeaning esthetic value of a solid 8 ft. fence. It is kind of a compromise of the two. Mr. White said a 3 ft. fence is easy to be scaled by anybody. I do not think that will accomplish what you are looking for. I would say the fence should be 4 ft. but it cannot go on top of the berm because then we cannot put the plantings there. Mr. Stafford-Taylor said how ever it works best but I think it might do the neighbors better not to have a big 8 ft. fence. Mr. White pointed out with the berm; it would be like looking at the wall in here which is 10 ft. high. Vice Chairman Conard said the lower fence and the trees would be much more natural and a better fit but I am asking the Applicant. Mr. Linnus said we agree.

• Mr. Edelman said the fence ends at the end of my property and I do not mind looking at an 8 ft. fence. I do not find it obnoxious at all. I would like to see some type of significant fence sized fence there to keep people from coming on our property.

Vice Chairman Conard said rather than keep going back and forth on this I want the neighbors and Mr. Heibell to go in the back of the room and come back with the solution during a recess. Break Mr. Heibell said we have four different opinions so we did it by the lottery system. What the neighbors would prefer is along the entire southerly property line they would like a 5 ft. high board on board fence. Directly on our side of it we will put a 2 ft. berm adjoining the fence and then we would have a contiguous series of evergreens at the time of planting 6 to 8 ft. that will grow. So at the time of planting they will see a 5 ft. fence and about 4 to 5 ft. of evergreen trees immediately on the opposite side of the fence. The one adjoining property owner at Lot 72.05 has an existing fence about 50 ft. up the property line right now. I believe the fence is 7 or 8 ft. which is probably in violation of your ordinance but nonetheless, it is existing, we will put the same treatment going northerly along the property line for a distance of 100 ft. which will bring us up to the mid-point of the building and basically up to the back of the Bothers’ building. We will then place the same treatment in that location which is a 5 ft. high fence and the evergreens directly behind the fence on our property. Ms. Zhang said just for the record, we agree with Bob. Mr. Ringelheim said just for the record, there is no fence ordinance. Close Public Mr. Bernstein stated the motion will be for the application as proposed with the modifications made by the Applicant on the record, the concurrence of the request made by the Board Engineer and Board Planner as well as a recommendation to the Township Committee relative to no parking designation on Dickerson with the distance left to Chief Kaminski. A motion to approve application #10-PB-09-SRV with all of the stipulations Mr. Bernstein just reviewed was made by Mr. Stafford-Taylor, seconded by Mr. Tomson. Roll Call: Ms. Fenwick – yes; Mr. Tomson – yes; Mr. Stafford-Taylor – yes; Mr. Cohen – yes; Mr. Mershon – yes; Committeeman Wagner – yes; Mayor DelCore – yes; Vice Chairman Conard – yes. Motion carries.

• TJC Development – HIDDEN BROOK – File #10-PB-08-MJ – Block 207.01, Lot 107 – South Woods Road. Francis P. Linnus, Esq. said I am representing the Applicant, TJC Development, owner and developer of the property. This is a residential piece of property located on Township Line Road and South Woods Road. The proposal is for a preliminary major subdivision without variances. We have a few witnesses but will not get past Mr. Heibell tonight. Robert B. Heibell, P.E., P.P. & L.S. of Van Cleef Engineering was sworn in and gave the following testimony: We have three more witnesses to testify at the continuation hearing but tonight we thought we would give you a quick orientation of the application. Mr. Ringelheim confirmed December 2nd will be the continuation date and requested an extension.


October 14, 2010

13

Mr. Heibell had Exhibit A1-ID – Hidden Brook Exhibit Plan marked in. This property is 22 plus acres and is located northeast of the corner of South Woods Road and Township Line Road. The proposal is for 16 single family dwellings with the only access from South Woods Road. All of the lots meet the requirements of the 1 acre zone, have 150 ft. frontage and lot width. There are environmental constraints along the northerly boundary of the property. The Township has a requirement in the Residential Zone where the number of lots are calculated not based on how many you can fit but what the gross lot area is minus the percentages of the critical areas. In this case we have 16 homes, the allowable is 18, rounding up. We are not exceeding the allowable density after subtracting the critical areas. The 17th lot on the southeast corner of our circular road is for the purpose of having a stormwater detention basin. That lot also meets the standards of the R-1 Zone, as required by the Township. We have met the standards of both the Township and the RSIS. The lots would be serviced by sanitary sewer. There is an existing sanitary sewer in South Woods Road at the southwest corner of our tract. Our ground is actually lower than the sanitary sewer so we would have to build a force main. Currently there are two options. We have shown a force main on the plans. HTMUA has yet to hold their meeting on this so we will need to meet with HTMUA between now and the extension date, in order to find out if the proposal is acceptable. Should it not be acceptable we will have to build an on-site pump station and build a larger force main going out into South Woods Road. In either case, all of the lots will be serviced by sanitary sewer. Public water is available so we have the required utilities for lots in the 1 acre zone. I will go into the tree mitigation further at the next meeting but we did the required tree survey on the property and came up with 282 replacement trees and have submitted an Economic Hardship Waiver which has been reviewed by the Township Planner and Township Engineer who have both come up with the same number. We have also placed a number of street trees along the public road which do not count in the 282 trees. Mr. Stafford-Taylor said based on your map I see what looks like a lot of existing vegetation that you are leaving at the rear of many of the lots. Mr. Heibell said the Residential Zone has a different Tree Ordinance than a non-residential zone. The standard in Hillsborough in a Residential Zone is that you cannot take down in excess of 20% of the existing qualified trees on the entire subdivision. We actually qualified over 3,000 trees. Here we do not count the perimeter of the dwellings and the 40 ft. of the driveways. The number of trees we are removing 18.2% so we are less than the 20%. That is not to say we do not need to abide by the Tree Mitigation Ordinance; that is in addition. If we had say 24% of the qualified trees, we would need to seek a variance. We are not seeking any waivers or variances on this application. Mr. Stafford-Taylor said I am sure there will be public comments regarding buffers. It looks as though on a great number of those the existing vegetation will make a nice buffer. Is there going to be a mechanism to keep the potential homeowners from clearing their own property or can they do that? Will there be a conservation easement? Mr. Heibell said I believe the Board will request they be placed within a conservation easement, and the Applicant will agree. That was a concern for the Environmental Commission. We spent a good amount of time talking about that so not only would we put it on paper but that the homeowners would know it at the time of sale. The Environmental Commission wants me to monument all of the curbs which is fine but the homeowners would not know where they are. We also have to place the signs in accordance with your Ordinance. A motion to carry application #10-PB-08-MJ to December 02, 2010 without further notice, with an extension through December 31st was made by Mr. Stafford-Taylor, seconded by Mr. Tomson. All in favor. Mr. Ringelheim said there is no business on the next business meeting of October 28th. All were in favor to cancel the meeting. CORRESPONDENCE None ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Submitted by: Debora Padgett Planning Board Clerk

hillsborough township planning board public …district creates a split-lot zone that requires a...

Documents