November 7, 2002 The monthly meeting Greenwich Township Board of Adjustment was held on the above date and was called to order by Ray Buckwalter, Chairman, at 7:30 P.M., in the Municipal Building. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 231, PL, 1975, adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act by: 1. Mailing a notice of scheduled meetings of the Greenwich Township Board of Adjustment to the Express-Times, Phillipsburg Free Press and The Star- Ledger. 2. Posting a notice thereof on the Township bulletin board. 3. Filing a copy thereof with the Township Clerk. Board members present: Steve Babula, Elaine Emiliani, Bruce Williams, Ray Buckwalter, Kathy McDermid, Bill Savino, Patrick Mahoney. Also present were William Edleston, Esq. and Michael Finelli, PE. Absent were Robert Vetrecin and Robert Volk. Elaine Emiliani made a motion, seconded by Steve Babula, to adopt the minutes of the October 3, 2002 meeting. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino, Mahoney. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Minutes adopted. Case No. 32-02, Jean and Craig Steinke, rear yard setback for a deck. The Board did not have jurisdiction to hear the case due to the fact that notice to property owners was not given at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. According to New Jersey Zoning and Land Use Administration, by William M. Cox, the date of the hearing is not counted as one of the ten days. Elaine Emiliani made a motion, seconded by Bruce Williams, to carry the application to the December 12, 2002 meeting. No further notice will be required. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, November 7, 2002 Page 2 Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Hearing carried to the December 12, 2002 meeting. Greenwich Auto Spa Variance Relief Resolution. Resolution memorializing the grant of bulk variance relief, Block 26.01, Lot 1, was reviewed as to its’ form and accuracy. Upon review, Bruce Williams made a motion, seconded by Elaine Emiliani, to adopt the Resolution as prepared. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Resolution adopted. Schmied Resolution. Resolution granting use variance (two principal uses on one lot) in connection with a Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment application, Block 11, Lots 3, 4.04, 5, 5.01, was reviewed as to its’ form and accuracy. Upon review, Steve Babula made a motion, seconded by Bruce Williams, to adopt the Resolution as prepared. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Resolution adopted. Wayne Schmied, Minor Site Plan, Block 11, Lot 13, Route 57. The application is for property located at the southeast intersection of Route 57 and North Main Street. Presently, a gas station exists as the primary use of the property. The main structure on the property consists of 1,950-sq. ft. of which the majority is currently vacant. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing vacant area within the primary structure to a “Bagelsmith” deli. The Board at their October 3, 2002 meeting granted a use variance for dual principal uses on one (1) property. The Board secretary reviewed the Affidavit of Publication and found it to be timely and proper notice was given to property owners within 200’, giving the Board jurisdiction to conduct a public hearing. Patrick Mahoney made a motion, seconded by Steve Babula, to open the public hearing. The vote is as follows: November 7, 2002 Page 3 IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Public hearing open. A Minor Site Plan was submitted showing the existing features on the property. Based upon Mr. Finelli’s recommendation, sufficient information was submitted to allow the Board to render an informed decision regarding the Minor Site Plan phase of the application and Mr. Finelli recommends that the application be deemed complete. Based upon that recommendation, Bruce Williams made a motion, seconded by Steve Babula, to deem the Schmied Minor Site Plan complete. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Application deemed complete. The Board and the applicant reviewed Michael Finelli’s report of November 5, 2002. The Board discussed the following: 1. Parking. Fifteen (15) parking spaces are needed. The applicant has provided fourteen (14) spaces. Mr. Finelli stated that the applicant has twelve (12) legitimate spaces. The two (2) parking spaces by Route 57 are undesirable and unacceptable. Still under oath, Joe Paranee, owner of the property, presented a letter to the Board, to be placed on the record, from Andrew Ferrigno, owner of Ferrigno Fitness Equipment, 705 Route 57. The letter, dated November 4, 2002, states that he gives Mr. Paranee permission to park two (2) vehicles on his property for employees of the bagel shop. Mr. Ferrigno’s business is located across the street from the proposed Bagelsmith. A variance would be needed for three (3) spaces, not including the spaces provided by Mr. Ferrigno. Mr. Paranee stated that access to the deli would be from the front. There has never been an accident in the parking lot. Mr. Finelli stated that the Bagelsmith will do well and sees the need for adequate parking. Mr. Paranee stated that he could get more parking spaces from Mr. Ferrigno, if needed. Bruce Williams stated that the fifteen (15) spaces take into account spaces for the employees. Mr. Finelli stated that also includes the spaces required for the November 7, 2002 Page 4 warehouse area, which are two (2). Therefore, two (2) of those spaces are for the warehouse. Mr. Paranee stated that the warehouse is going to be for storage and will require no parking. In summary, Ray Buckwalter stated that fifteen (15) spaces are required. Of the fifteen (15), two (2) of them are associated with the storage building, which has no need for parking or employees. That would reduce the need to thirteen (13). There are ten (10) on the site that are acceptable and still need a variance for three (3). Elaine Emiliani questioned the Ferrigno spaces. She would rather have onsite parking. Chairman Buckwalter addressed the public for their comments on the parking issue. Hearing none, Bruce Williams made a motion, seconded by Elaine Emiliani, to grant a variance for off street parking, 15 spaces required vs.12 spaces provided, to Wayne Schmied, Block 11, Lot 13. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. 2. Health Department approval. Mr. Paranee stated that the Health Department has been notified and is awaiting their approval. The Health Department is waiting for a septic plan from the applicant. Upon review of Mr. Finelli’s report, the applicant stated that he would comply with all of the items contained within the report. Mr. Paranee is planning to seal coat and paint the driveway in the spring. Mr. Finelli stated that if the Bagel Smith is going to open in January, there are certain minimum standards that will have to be installed before Mr. Schmied can open. Patrick Mahoney advised the applicant that he should get it done now and get it done with. Mr. Paranee agreed to Mr. Mahoney’s suggestion. Mr. Finelli advised the applicant that his engineer should revise the plans, add stop signs, traffic flow arrows, etc. Mr. Finelli stated that there is no need for additional landscaping and buffering. There is a pretty substantial buffer on one side of the property. Chairman Buckwalter addressed the public for their comments and concerns: Lisa Haller, 405 N. Main Street. Ms. Haller stated that there is a very bright light coming from the station. When the leaves are off, it shines into her home and shines in her bedroom window. Ms. Haller doesn’t want any additional lighting. November 7, 2002 Page 5 Ms. Haller further stated that she is concerned about the noise early in the morning. Mr. Paranee stated that there is no proposal for any additional lighting. The only signage being proposed is a Bagel Smith sign on the existing gas station sign. Mr. Schmied stated that he opens at 5:00 a.m., but people usually don’t come in until around 6:30 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. There is not much traffic before 7:00 a.m. Ms. Haller asked that if there is an issue with the noise, what recourse does she have. Chairman Buckwalter stated that there is a noise ordinance and Mr. Finelli stated that the Board could restrict the hours of operation. Chairman Buckwalter informed Ms. Haller that the site conditions are not going to change, but if she has concerns about the noise or light, she should contact the Zoning Officer. Mr. Finelli stated that he could examine the lighting before the Bagelsmith opens, to see if some type of shielding might be required, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Upon hearing no further comments, Steve Babula made a motion, seconded by Elaine Emiliani, to close the public hearing. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Public hearing closed. The Board informed the applicant that the plans have to be revised, obtain approval from the health department and Warren County, a meeting is to be held with Mr. Finelli at the site to talk about the signs. A lighting test will be performed by Mr. Finelli prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. Site work can be done, but work cannot be done on the building until Health Department approval has been obtained. Patrick Mahoney made a motion, seconded by Bruce Williams, to grant Minor Site Plan approval to Wayne Schmied, Block 11, Lot 13, to operate a Bagelsmith, with conditions. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Minor site plan approval granted. November 7, 2002 Page 6 The applicant requested that the Board direct the Board secretary to write a letter to the Zoning Officer requesting him to issue a clearance prior to the Resolution being adopted. Mr. Buckwalter, Chairman, stated that a pre-construction meeting has to be held with Mr. Finelli. Authorization would be given to issue a letter once Mr. Finelli’s office has approved all the conditions. Elaine Emiliami made a motion, seconded by Bill Savino, authorizing the issuance of a letter once the conditions of approval have been complied with to Mr. Finelli’s satisfaction. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Linda and Anthony Piperata Minor Subdivision, Block 2, Lots 3, 4.04, 5 and 5.01, Completeness and Technical Review, Application No. 29-02, continued public hearing. The applicant has proposed to subdivide and reconfigure the four (4) existing lots into four (4) proposed lots. The application received approval for a use variance for two (2) principal uses on one (1) lot and the Minor Subdivision application was deemed incomplete at the Board’s September 12, 2002 meeting. The proposed subdivision will require numerous bulk variances for required lot area, lot width, flag width, front-yard, side-yard, and rear-yard setbacks. Present were Wayne Jarvis, Surveyor, Linda and Anthony Piperata, applicants. Revised plans were submitted complying with all previously outstanding checklist items. Steve Babula made a motion, seconded by Bruce Williams, to deem Application No. 29- 02, Linda and Anthony Piperata complete. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. . Motion carried. Application deemed complete. Wayne Jarvis, Surveyor, stated that he feels the application is really a lot line adjustment and not a minor subdivision. Attorney Edleston disagreed with that by stating that the applicant is not creating additional lots, but new lots are being created. This application could be classified as a re-subdivision. November 7, 2002 Page 7 Addressing Mr. Finelli’s report of November 4, 2002, Mr Piperata stated that he has reviewed the report and will comply with all comments. Mr. Finelli stated that the plan is an improvement, but there is a question of water service that crosses over the property and there is a question as to the location of the existing septic systems. The existing septic systems are depicted on the plan, but the applicant should confirm that they are situated in the location as depicted on the plan. Mr. Finelli stated that Mr. Jarvis should confirm where the structures are under ground. If creating new lot lines, Mr. Finelli stated that the Board has to know where the septic and wells are. There are some things below ground that the Board should know where they are located. Mr. Jarvis stated that Lot 3 has a well on it and Lot 5.01 serves Lot 4. At one time, all the homes were served off the well on Lot 5. Mr. Piperata drilled a well purposely to try and alleviate that problem. Mr. Jarvis suggested to Mr. Piperata that when they separate the title for Lot 4.04, put a well on Lot 4.04. Mr. Finelli stated that, unfortunately, the Piperata’s and their surveyor don’t really know where the septics are located. The subdivision cannot be perfected and deeds cannot be filed until the Board has this information. If new lot lines are being created, the Board has to be comfortable in knowing that where the lot lines are being created is in a place that is not going over the middle of a septic system. Mr. Finelli stated that the existing deck for dwelling #236 on proposed lot 5.01 encroaches approximately 2.4 feet into proposed lot 4.04. This condition is unacceptable and the deck should be modified accordingly prior to the approval perfection of the subdivision application. Mr. Piperata stated that he would remove the deck to resolve the problem. Mr. Piperata will address all of Mr. Finelli’s comments and concerns. Mr. Finelli stated recommended that a maintenance agreement for the common driveway be developed by the applicant and submitted to his office and the Board’s attorney for review and approval. The variances needed for Lot 3 are the following: 1. Minimum lot area. 2. Side yard setback. 3. Impervious coverage. Steve Babula made a motion, seconded by Patrick Mahoney, to grant a variance to Lot 3 for minimum lot area (81,000 required vs. 13,193 proposed). The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Minimum lot area variance for Lot 3 was granted. November 7, 2002 Page 8 Steve Babula made a motion, seconded by Bruce Williams to grant a variance to Lot 3 for side yard setback, (30 ft. required vs. 20.8 ft and 28.8 ft.): IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Chairman Buckwalter stated that until the well and septic issues are resolved as to their location underground, no more action on the variances would be taken. Therefore, Bruce Williams made a motion, seconded by Elaine Emiliani, to continue the Minor Subdivision hearing until the January. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Hearing continued. The applicant granted the Board an extension of time to act on the minor subdivision application until the February meeting. A letter will be forthcoming. Case No. 30-02, Greenwich Auto Spa, Block 26.01, Lot 1, Preliminary Site Plan review, continuation of public hearing. Representing the applicant was Brian Tipton, Esq. Still sworn were Eugene McConigle, a principal of the car wash and Eugene Weber, PE. Eugene Weber, PE addressed Michael Finelli’s report, dated October 1, 2002. The following items were discussed: 1. Dumpster enclosure. Mr. Weber stated that the dumpster enclosure would be landscaped with yews on three sides and the front portion would be open. Mr. Finelli recommends fencing on at least two sides and landscaping as well. The dumpster will either be rented or purchased. 2. Police comments. A letter was received from Sgt. Dale A. Bulmer, of the Greenwich Township Police Department, recommending the following to alleviate some of the congestion and blocking of the roadway at Route 122 and 22: 1. West Avenue be made a right-turn only onto Route 122 (New Brunswick Avenue). 2. Signs be placed at the intersection of Route 122 and West avenue November 7, 2002 Page 9 directing all traffic to Route 22 and Greenwich Street by using Dumont Road. 3. Arrows be painted on Route 122 indicating thru lanes only. 4. Right turn arrows only be painted on West Avenue along with signs for right turn only. 5. At the intersection of New Brunswick and Target Drive, signs indicating to Route 22 and Greenwich Street. Mr. Finelli stated that the Board is reviewing the site plan and if the Board feels that this site was going to cause a traffic problem, the Board has the right to restrict no left hand turn movement. Michael Finelli stated that the governing body has to enact an ordinance restricting the turning movement. This could be the recommendation of the Board to the township committee. From personal observation, Attorney Edleston feels very strongly that a left hand turn should be prohibited and feels that Walt Lublanecki, Traffic Engineer, should look at this again. Mr. McConigle stated that there was a stop sign at the jug handle, which was a brilliant move, but now it is gone. With the stop sign, it does allow for some meshing of traffic. Eugene Weber felt that DOT removed it because they want to keep traffic flowing. The applicant agreed to the no left hand turn. It was suggested that the applicant forward a letter to the township committee stating that the Board feels strongly that, from a safety perspective, a no left hand turn is warranted. Attorney Edleston stated that this would be a condition of approval. 3. Fire hydrant location. Mr. Weber stated that the location of the nearest fire hydrant is located at Perkins and on the shopping center site. 4. Water supply line. Mr. Weber stated that there is an existing well on the site. The applicant’s intention is to use the well to supply water for the auto spa, if possible. Mr. McConigle stated that the water has not been tested yet. If the water is hard, then you can’t use it. The auto spa will use very little water. Mr. McConigle would definitely want to use the well if he can. They might have to tap into the main line across the street. 5. Storage of oil. Brian Tipton stated that operating the oil space heater is regulated by the DEP. Attorney Tipton stated that it is regulated by the NJDEP and reviewed on a regular basis. The DEP can issue fines if violated. Mr. McConigle stated that the primary tank holds around 1,000 gallons of all- purpose oil, which is standard. There will be a waste oil recovery tank. All of these oils are kept in an area in the basement, below grade, underneath the lube facility that is in a self-contained spill area. If any of those tanks, or all of those tanks, got a sudden hole in them, every drop of oil would be November 7, 2002 Page 10 contained in that area, wouldn’t rise above the wall that it is in, and then pumped out. It is a sealed off area. It would be similar to a waterbed. The tanks would be sitting on a concrete floor with a coating on the concrete floor. Mr. McConigle has to apply to DEP to use one of these units. A brochure on the heating system was shown to the Board. Mr. McConigle stated that he would accept waste oil from residents. All the oil from residents will be taken away because you can’t combine that waste oil with his oil for heating. There will be a separate tank in the basement for waste oil from residents. Chairman Buckwalter stated that the applicant, in his testimony, stated that he would not be burning any oil that is brought in by the residents. Brian Tipton stated that there are pretreatment measures for contaminated ground surface water generated by the facility. There are pretreatment measures required in the DEP regulations. It will have to go through a filtration system and the filters have to be changed a couple of times a year. 6. Stacking spaces. The site access point is at the bulb of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Weber feels that it shouldn’t be an issue. There will be very low volume of traffic in and out of the site and Mr. Weber stated that the vehicles would be traveling at a very low rate of speed coming into the driveway. The way the site is situated, West End Avenue cul-de-sac almost operates like a driveway to the site. The driveway is 42’ wide and there is plenty of room there. Mr. Finelli feels that there is not a compelling problem on the site. The advantage of the auto spa is that the site is on a cul-de-sac. 7. Signage. In addition to the pylon sign, Mr. Weber stated that there would be directional signs located at the tip of the grass island directing people to the lube and car wash and parking lot. 8. Landscaping plants along West Avenue and onto New Brunswick Avenue. Mr. Weber stated that he is not proposing any plantings other than the grass island that is there. The island is about 10’ wide. Any street trees will interfere with the power poles and the wires. Mr. Finelli stated that there could be some additional plantings there. Mr. McConigle stated that he would provide additional ornamental, low growing plantings. 9. ADA guidelines. The applicant will comply with the ADA accessibility guidelines. 10. Design details for the underground water recovery systems tanks and pretreatment measures for contaminated ground surface water. Mr. Weber stated that he would supply the Board with documentation and specs. November 7, 2002 Page 11 11. Sewer capacity. Attorney Tipton has had several meetings with Brent Carney, the township’s sewer attorney and is in the process of procuring the sewer allocation. A lot of money has been spent making connections to the town’s lines. Mr. Finelli stated that the applicant has no sewer capacity and the township has no sewer capacity to give the applicant. That is the language that is in the contracts on the table. Attorney Edleston stated that the Resolution will identify the fact that the applicant doesn’t have sewer capacity and the applicant knows that there will not be a certificate of occupancy issued if sewer is not there. The applicant has the connection to the mall. They just don’t have the capacity. The applicant has entered into a Developer’s Agreement with the township. This is the township’s protection. 12. Abandoning the existing septic system. That will be done when the site improvements are constructed. 13. Design details for the underground water recovery system tanks and pretreatment measures for contaminated ground surface water. That information will be provided. Assuming the applicant can get sewage capacity and work out the sewage with the township, Mr. Finelli stated that we probably should get some piece of correspondence from the applicant because the car wash will put flow into the township’s sewer system. The township should know how much is going to be put in. Mr. McConigle stated that the system is not to much different from a pond in your yard. The reason McConigle can’t give an answer on how much water is going to go back into the system is because it depends on the hardness of the water. The harder the water, the more softener is used. If the well is used, the water is relatively soft coming out of the ground. If it should be hard, then there is a greater discharge of water. Matter is not being dumped into the lines to clog them up. The system is a lot cleaner than a kitchen in a restaurant. There is also a grease trap system that the water has to go through. The applicant will supply specs on the system to have on file. Mr. Weber stated that the applicant would comply with all other comments contained within Mr. Finelli’s report. Steve Babula and several other Board members stated that they were under the impression that the auto spa had sewer capacity from the mall. Ray Buckwalter stated that they had an agreement to hook up into the shopping center’s line for the septic but didn’t have the capacity to put any fluids through it. Brian Tipton, Esq. stated that it was a two fold system. It was getting the connection to the mall and then the capacity was something that the town would not promise so they had to go to an outside source. The applicant is seeking an allocation from Alpha. The capacity is still a pending issue. Ms. Emiliani stated that she never knew that they had to go outside to get sewage. Mr. Finelli November 7, 2002 Page 12 stated that they couldn’t get any site improvements done if there is no sewage. Mr. Buckwalter stated that there would be no building permits issued if sewer capacity is not obtained. Elaine Emiliani made a motion, seconded by Steve Babula, to close the public hearing. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Willliams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing closed. Bruce Williams made a motion, seconded by Ray Buckwalter, authorizing William Edleston, Esq. to draft a Preliminary Site Plan Resolution in order for the Board to review the conditions. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Ray Buckwalter made a motion, seconded by Steve Babula, to continue the application to the December meeting. The vote is as follows: IN FAVOR: Babula, Emiliani, Mahoney, Williams, Buckwalter, McDermid, Savino. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAINED: None. Motion carried. Elaine Emiliani made a motion, seconded by Ray Buckwalter, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned. November 7, 2002 Page 13 Elva N. Pomroy Board of Adjustment Secretary Ray Buckwalter, Chairman