 |
|
|
|
WORKSHOP MEETING Mr. D’Emidio called the meeting of the Mendham Township
Planning Board to order at ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Giordano (arrived Mr. Timpson, Mr. Mountain Absent:
Mr.
Tolley, Mr. Majorossy Also Present:
Mr. Falcon, Attorney; Mr. Kimball, Planner; Mr. Aubin, Environmentalist, and Mr.
Balut, Engineer SALUTE TO THE FLAG
Mr. D’Emidio asked for a motion to nominate a temporary
Chairman in Mr. Giordano’s absence. Mrs. Kinsel moved that the Mayor begin the
meeting as temporary Chairman; Mr. Mountain seconded the motion, vote all aye. ADEQUATE
NOTICE OF MEETING of the Mendham Township Planning Board was given as
follows: Notice was sent to the Daily Record and the Observer
Tribune on MINUTES
FOR APPROVAL – Mayor Pierson announced that the first order of business is
the Mendham Golf and Tennis Club paddle tennis courts application. Chairman
Giordano arrived at MENDHAM
GOLF AND TENNIS CLUB – Paddle Tennis Courts
Mr. Glen Geiger, counsel for the applicant, Mendham Golf and
Tennis Club (MG&T), described the application for preliminary and final site
plan approval for paddle tennis additions. He stated the property location is
Block 144, Lots 24 and 142, and that the proposal is to replace two dilapidated
paddle tennis courts with two new courts. This will bring the total number of
courts to four, which is the number of courts which the MG&T has had
historically. He further stated that the location is a fair distance from
adjacent property lines, it is a permitted accessory, no variances are being
sought for this application, and an affidavit of service was provided to the
Board Secretary. Mr. Geiger introduced Mr. Anthony Gianforcaro, Engineer, who
prepared the site plan and requested that Mr. Gianforcaro be called to provide
testimony. Mr. Falcon swore in Mr. Gianforcaro and the witnesses. Chairman Giordano requested that Mr. Gianforcaro provide a
short voir dire in order to provide the public with the opportunity to
present any questions pertaining to Mr. Gianforcaro’s qualifications. Mr.
Gianforcaro provided his credentials, and since there were no questions from the
Board or the public, he was accepted by the Board as an expert in the field of
engineering. Mr. Gianforcaro stated that there are two plans that have
been provided for this application. He referred to the overall site plan of the
entire MG&T property and indicated that to the west side of the existing
pond there is a circle in the middle of the property where the existing paddle
tennis courts are today. This same document also shows the two proposed small
tennis courts. The distance from the paddle tennis courts to the closest
property line is in excess of 700 feet. Mr. Gianforcaro said that the second
plan is an enlarged site plan for the paddle tennis courts which indicates the
two existing paddle tennis courts and the two proposed paddle tennis courts. He
noted that the only other proposal for this project is a French drain which
intercepts a lot of surface water which comes down off the course. Mr. Geiger confirmed with Mr. Gianforcaro that the distance
from adjacent property lines is in excess of 700 feet and questioned whether the
plan shows existing evergreen plantings. Mr. Gianforcaro pointed out that to the west of the existing
paddle tennis courts there are star symbols that indicate tree evergreen and
actual caliber of the tree. These evergreens are in excess of 20 feet in height
and 14 feet in diameter. They are large evergreens and there is no proposal to
take down any trees to construct the courts. Mr. Gianforcaro further indicated
that the courts are elevated structures and will provide less disturbance to the
ground because of this type of construction. The proposed elevation of the court
is approximately what is there today but to the most westerly part of the
property, it is approximately 50 feet lower in elevation. Mayor Pierson asked whether the courts would be lighted with
downward lights that will not present a glare to neighbors on Mr. Timpson asked if the six or seven trees in the immediate
area is enough to dampen the sound on Chairman Giordano opened the meeting for questions from the
public with respect to Mr. Gianforcaro’s testimony. Ms. Mary Moore, lot 42, and neighbor of the Van Renssalaers indicated that they have a direct view from their home to the tennis courts (not the paddle tennis courts). She stated that the Van Renssalaers were out of town but were of the opinion that there were supposed to be buffer trees planted that have not been put in and wanted to be assured that the area along that line by the tennis courts would have a buffer. Chairman Giordano advised that this matter involves a separate application, which Mr. Geiger will be questioned on later in the testimony. Ms. Moore then asked about a flood light on the plan that did not indicate motion sensor and inquired if that would be directed downward. Chairman Giordano recapped the two questions to Mr. Gianforcaro: 1) clarification as to whether all the lights are motion sensored, and 2) the buffering between lot 41 and the paddle tennis courts. Mr. Gianforcaro said that it is a substantial buffer between the paddle tennis courts and lot 41, and stated that the approximate distance between the most easterly corner of lot 41 and the new paddle tennis courts is more than 750 feet and the corner closest to the roadway and parking for the tennis courts is in excess of 900 feet to the proposed paddle tennis courts. Mr. Gianforcaro said that there is one light proposed to be operated via a motion sensor so that people walking or exiting when it’s dark won’t be walking in an unlit area. The rest of the lights will be on a switch that is turned on and off by the players. The one light shown on motion sensor on the shed is for safely traversing the area to get to the courts. Mr. Gianforcaro responded to a question from Ms. Moore regarding a line on the plan that indicates the foot handles of the light on the court. He said that there will actually be 3-foot candles of light at that line and the proposal is to have 400-watt lamps on these 3-foot lights that will be on each court. The hatched line shows a 3-foot candle line, and as you proceed out, it diminishes down to one foot. The light will be 20 feet off the surface and the direction of light will be straight down. There being no further questions of Mr. Gianforcaro, Mr.
Geiger called Mr. Bryan Seavey as a witness. Mr. Falcon swore in Mr. Seavey as a
witness. Mr. Seavey stated that he is a member of MG&T and his
role is the subcommittee chairman for the construction of the new courts. He
confirmed that he has been involved in the submission of this application and is
familiar with the operation of the paddle tennis courts. Upon questioning by Mr.
Geiger, Mr. Seavey stated that the importance of tree screening was brought up
at the TRC Meeting, so he took a photo of lot 41 to illustrate the screening and
sent it to Mr. Lavigne. Mr. Geiger referred to the photo and Mr. Seavey
confirmed that it was the picture he had taken during the winter. Mr. Geiger
entered the photo into the record as Exhibit A-1. A discussion ensued regarding
the direction in which the photo was taken and the views from various locations.
Mr. Seavey then testified as to the hours of operation and
lighting during those hours. He stated that the highest traffic for the paddle
tennis courts will be when the game is played is from late September to the
middle of March. He said that the courts are not lit when not in operation and
that it is the responsibility of those who show up first to turn the lights on
and those who leave last to turn the lights off. He further stated that it’s
very difficult to walk off and not remember to turn the lights off and the
motion sensor light helps those having to walk down the stairs. He said he is
not aware of a formal cut-off time for playing, but in general, it is not much
later than Chairman Giordano referred to information supplied from
Reilly Green Mountain Platform Tennis and inquired as to whether a heating
system would be installed, and if so, what kind of noise is generated from these
heaters. Mr. Seavey stated that both the current and new courts are heated and
by a natural gas supply system, which is run by PSEG. He described them as
torpedo light heaters which look like a torpedo with a fan on it, and when you
turn the blower and heater on, it warms up the aluminum deck courts and dries
them off so they’re not slippery. Mr. Seavey said that there is some noise
generated from the 2 blowers on each court (200,000 BTUs per blower), but
usually the blowers are only on for the amount of time it takes to dry the court
off. Mr. Geiger asked if the blowers are audible from 750 feet, and Mr. Seavey
replied that he thinks the only thing you can hear from the paddle tennis courts
at that distance is someone yelling. Further discussion ensued regarding the
possibility of automatic shut off on the heaters, lighting and possible security
issues. There being no further questions from the Board, Chairman
Giordano opened the meeting for questions from the public regarding Mr.
Seavey’s testimony. There being no questions from the public, Chairman
Giordano asked Mr. Balut to review the Maser Consulting Report. Mr. Balut stated that most of his report is descriptive
explaining what the paddle tennis courts are, and his only comment was that
there is minimal sight disturbance and there appears to be little impact to
neighbors. Chairman Giordano asked Mr. Kimball to review the Kimball
& Kimball report. Mr. Kimball stated that his report addresses the planning
issues, which have been brought out very clearly in the testimony. Mr. Kimball
said that there is an historic site adjacent to the property, lot 40, and he
believes the impact on adjacent properties has been addressed. He said the only
thing that has not been addressed is the Master Plan’s concern on
environmental impacts and referred that discussion to Mr. Aubin. Mr. Aubin stated that Mr. Gianforcaro explained the project
very well and said that there is very little environmental impact from this
proposal. Mr. Aubin said that MG&T should get an area of disturbance or LOI
for the entire Club and any approval for this particular application should be
conditioned upon obtaining an area of disturbance LOI. Chairman Giordano
recalled that Mr. Lavigne was going to update the Board on this matter and asked
Mr. Geiger for an update. Mr. Geiger indicated that MG&T has received a
proposal to do the work from PK Environmental, which is acceptable, and are
waiting for the proposal on the survey portion of the work to come back. Mr. Kimball added that the Master Plan views the MG&T
Club as an integral and supportive part of the Township’s overall land use
plan, so the maintenance of the integrity of the Club or anything that would
promote the maintenance of that integrity is significant. Mr. Mountain informed the Board that Mr. Van Renssalaer had
called to advise that he could not be at the hearing but wanted Mr. Mountain to
note on the record for him that, in his opinion, there has been a thinning out
of the tree screening, there are gaps in the screening, and Mr. Van
Renssalaer’s property still gets lighting from cars leaving the site onto his
property. A motion was made to open the meeting to the public; the
motion was seconded, vote all aye. Ms. Moore stated that she has been in the Van Renssalaer’s
yard, as well as in the upper level of their home, and said that you can see the
Club very clearly and it is a definite problem for them. Chairman Giordano noted that the issue has come up before in
a previous application for MG&T regarding the tennis courts and additional
landscaping being planted between the Club property and lot 41 and asked Mr.
Geiger to provide the status of that matter. Mr. Geiger said that Mr. Reynolds informed him that there
were three additional spruce trees that were ordered for planting in that area
but they have not yet been received. Mayor Pierson made a motion to grant Mr. Falcon the ability
to prepare a resolution approving the site plan for Block 144, Lot 24, paddle
tennis courts with the stipulation that lighting on the courts is focused
downward and will be monitored; Mr. D’Emidio seconded the motion, vote all
aye. MENDHAM GOLF AND
TENNIS CLUB – Pump House
Mr. Glen Geiger, counsel for the applicant, described this
application for final site plan approval for a new pump house, Block 144, lot 24
and Block 142, Lot 56. Mr. Geiger stated that there are currently two existing
pump houses on the course, and this is a proposal to install a new pump house
that will enable one existing pump to be dismantled and removed and have the
other existing pump serve as a back up. Mr. Geiger stated that Mr. Anthony
Gianforcaro, who prepared the site plan, is here to answer questions, as well as
Mr. Boyle, the golf course superintendent. Mr. Gianforcaro directed the Board’s attention to the set
of plans with three sheets in it, the first sheet is dated Chairman Giordano noted that there were no questions from the
Board or the public regarding Mr. Gianforcaro’s qualifications as stated on
the record for the previous application and asked Mr. Gianforcaro to proceed. Mr. Gianforcaro stated that the first sheet of the plan is an
overall site plan of the entire MG&T Club property and pointed out the
proposed pump station to the northeast corner of the pond in the middle of the
property. Sheet SP-2 is an enlarged site plan, which shows the enlarged site
plan of the specific area where the pump house is proposed. The paddle tennis
courts are to the west of the pond, there is an existing asphalt path that is to
the north of the pond that meanders through the course and are proposing a
ten-foot asphalt path off of that to the new pump house for ingress and egress.
There is a proposed underground electric service line, which is to the west and
north of the existing pond as shown on the plan, and there is a pipe that is
proposed from the existing pump house into the pond where the pump house will
draw water. On the right hand side, there is proposed landscaping around the
pump house, dogwood and spruce trees and foundation type plantings around the
pump house building itself. The third drawing is a soil erosion plan and since
they are disturbing less than 5000 square feet, there was not the same response
on the soil erosion. The pump house is approximately 26’ x 26’ and is a
one-story structure with one single wall mounted residential light just outside
the doorway so that you can traverse in and out of the pump house safely. Mr. Falcon swore in Mr. Chris Boyle as a witness. Mr. Boyle identified himself as the golf course
superintendent for MG&T Club and acknowledged his familiarity with the
operation of the existing pump house. Mayor Pierson requested an explanation of the purpose and
operation of the pump house. Mr. Boyle stated that the pump house is used to pump water
through an irrigation system for irrigation of the tees, greens and fairways,
and utility turf on the golf course. The storage tanks on the building plans are
for liquid fertilizer. Mayor Pierson inquired as to the number of gallons in the
pond and Mr. Boyle responded that there are 13 million gallons. Mr. D’Emidio inquired as to the amount of noise the pump
produces and Mr. Boyle responded that the noise is 84 decibels at five feet and
all pumps are enclosed within the building. Mr. Boyle also stated that this pump
station will be equally or less audible than the existing pump house, which is
not audible at property lines. Ms. Kinsel inquired about water allocation, and Mr, Boyle
stated that the Club receives its water allocation from the State of Mr. Mountain asked if the application will have to be amended
in some way if the Club does not get the application approved for the new permit
for the additional water to support this pump station. Mr. Boyle stated that the
pump station comes on a skid and is manufactured as a single pumping unit. The
pump skid has 2 50-horsepower pumps capable of 500 gallons per minutes and there
is an additional third pump which is capable of 100 gallons per minute, which
gives the Club the 1100 gallons per minute at the pump station. If the
application is not approved from the State, they can modify the pump station by
reducing it down to 700 gallons. Mr. Boyle said they are not asking for any more
water on a monthly or annual basis; they are just asking to use the water
quicker. Ms. Kinsel inquired about the fertilizer, and Mr. Boyle
advised the Board that the fertilizer that is stored here is all liquid, stored
in plastic, 500-gallon storage tanks, and the pump house is locked at all times
except for the few supervisors who have access. Given there were no further questions from the Board,
Chairman Giordano called on Mr. Balut to review the Maser Consulting report. Mr. Balut stated that his report is brief, primarily
describing the building is a stone face masonry structure and requested
testimony as to the color and shingles for the record. Mr. Boyle stated that the
color will be an earth tone brown, light tan, with an asphalt shingle roof. Mr.
Balut further stated that there is a small amount of disturbance involved and
relatively far away from affected residents. Mr. Kimball reviewed the Kimball & Kimball report which
was submitted in early 2002 when the application was originally submitted. The
planning issues are very similar as to what was discussed in the previous
application, and the only additional things were the noise that was addressed
and the environmental questions, which Mr. Aubin will address. Mr. Aubin discussed the Connolly Environmental report and
stated that he had reviewed the document that the MG&T had submitted to the
DEP. It appears that they have the proper permits in place for the water
withdrawal and the proper fresh water wetlands permits in place to construct the
water withdrawal and in terms of disturbance, it’s very small and of very
little environmental concern. Mr. Aubin also stated that the same recommendation
for the Club to obtain an LOI for the entire area of disturbance exists for this
application. Discussion continued regarding the water allocation permit
and the need for the increased pumping rate. A motion was made to open the meeting to the public; the
motion was seconded, vote all aye. Given there were no questions from the public, a motion was
made to close the meeting to the public, the motion was seconded, vote all
aye. Chairman Giordano noted that there were no further questions
from the Board. Mr. D’Emidio made a motion to direct Mr. Falcon to prepare
a resolution approving the pump house application for Block 144, Lot 24; Mr.
Timpson seconded the motion; vote all aye. SMCMUA WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Mr. Sidney D. Weiss introduced himself as the attorney
representing the Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (SMCMUA)
and noted that this application is for review and recommendations pursuant to
N.J.S.A. Sec.40:55d-31. Mr. Weiss also noted that the Authority is a municipal
utility authority pursuant to municipal county utility authorities law for the
purpose of serving water and water services to residents in Morris County. The
Authority plans to replace the existing filtration plant at the Clyde Potts
Reservoir on Lot 9 and 118 with a new, improved and more attractive facility.
Mr. Weiss stated that the Authority recently granted a conservation easement to
the Mendham Township and Randolph Township, which restricts use of its entire
watershed with the exception of improvements to the water treatment facility.
Mr. Weiss informed the Board that his witnesses were as follows: Mr. William
Hutchinson, Executive Director and Chief Engineer of the Authority, is present
to discuss the background and basic overview of the facility, and the project
engineer; Mr. Clifford Wilkerson, of Hatch Mott MacDonald (formerly Killian
Associates) is present to respond to questions and concerns of the consultants;
and, Mr. Salvatore Lauro, the architect of the facility, is also present to
answer questions about the appearance of the building. Mr. Falcon swore in the witnesses. Mr. Hutchinson identified himself as Executive Director and
Chief Engineer of the SMCMUA since February 1, 2003, with 16 years as Chief
Engineer, and acknowledged his familiarity with the operation of the Authority
and the project which is the subject of this application. He offered a couple of
photos showing the existing plant that is going to be replaced. The plant was
put into operation in 1984 and was built to treat the water quality standards of
1983. The utility has struggled with that plant to meet water quality standards
for a long time as the standards have changed dramatically since 1984. In 1995,
it was determined they could not meet the standards for water quality and
deliver an acceptable water product, so the plant was taken out of service. It
was not done lightly because this is an extremely important water resource for
the Authority. The Authority entered into a series of pilot programs with
different types of treatment systems in order to determine the best way to
upgrade this plant to meet the quality standards and get enough water out of the
reservoir. Membrane filtration has been used for a number of years and is
becoming more prevalent in North America. In 1997, the Authority installed a
demonstration plant which was capable of doing approximately 400,000 gallons a
day and gave the Authority a knowledge of membrane systems to decide on the best
treatment for current and future water quality standards. The Authority entered
into a design with that treatment system and hired Hatch Mott MacDonald to begin
designing the plant. The original plan was to retrofit and put the new process
inside the plant and do it as economically as reasonable, but that was not
possible. It was decided that a new plant would be constructed. The Authority
Board set some very clear standards for this plant to meet all current and
foreseeable water standards and set out to construct a facility of lasting
quality with as much of the treatment process inside the building as possible.
Additionally, the Authority determined that the building had to be aesthetically
pleasing to fit into the neighborhood and the area in general. The Authority
Board authorized a good bit of money to do this project and came up with a
state-of-the-art system of high quality and had the architect review the project
for aesthetics and keep as much functionality as possible. Mr. Hutchinson noted
that the architect is here to address the detail but the idea is to give it a
decorative, rural front. The building was originally much bigger but the price
got way out of hand, and it was scaled down to as small as they possibly could
and still get as much of the treatment process inside the building as possible. The following were then entered into the record: Exhibit A-1 – photo taken late summer 2002 Exhibit A-2 – colored elevation of the building Exhibit A-3 – landscaping plan Mr. Hutchinson discussed the landscaping plan and Mr.
Kimball’s suggestion that on the north side of the building, the evergreen
plantings be extended alongside the building and have directed the engineer to
incorporate this suggestion. Further discussion continued regarding tree
screening from the roadways. Mr. Hutchinson noted that the tanks are existing and is one
of the things the Authority was able to reuse on this project and will remain in
place with an additional tank added. Chairman Giordano asked for questions from the Board and
discussion continued around the operation of the tanks, the backwashing process
and the noise generated from this facility. Mr. Mountain inquired as to the activity in the new plant
versus the existing plant and if there will be any noticeable difference that
would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Hutchinson responded that
the facility will be better aesthetically, a little more truck traffic but not
increased daily traffic, and initially there will be visitors to the plant to
look at the operation. In terms of noise, Mr. Hutchinson stated there will be no
noise at all because the generator is inside and all pumps are inside. Mr.
Hutchinson also noted that the Authority is constantly working with the county
on security. Mr. D’Emidio asked how many gallons a day the plant
produces, and Mr. Hutchinson said that it is 2 million gallons a day, and
hopefully in the summertime, 2-1/2 million gallons a day. Chairman Giordano asked about the construction schedule from
demolition to completion and Mr. Hutchinson advised that the demolition will
start in the next month of two and will be under construction for one year, and
would like to have a plant on line by June 1, 2004. Chairman Giordano inquired as to the type of fencing that
will be used, and Mr. Hutchinson advised that a chain link fence with PVC coat
is proposed with barbed wire on top, and the PVC used can be earth tones or
green. There being no further questions from the Board, Chairman
Giordano opened the meeting to questions from the public. Mr. Mike Valentino, 3 Reservoir Ridge Road, thanked the
SMCMUA for coming in and making a legitimate effort to make everyone happy with
this project. Mr. Valentino expressed his concern for the aesthetics of the area
and feels that the structure is very large, flat and uninteresting. He noted
that he and his neighbors had great enthusiasm for the prior design submitted.
Mr. Valentino asked if the tanks could be placed in the ground, and Mr.
Hutchinson said it was not feasible because of hydraulic issues and the need for
the tanks to be serviced and removal of the material in the tanks. He also asked
if the trucks coming in and out of there would be inside the building, except
for the cleaning of the tanks, and Mr. Hutchinson said that was correct. Mr. Michael Shatken, resident and representative of the
Historic Preservation Committee, asked about the scale of the building and how
much of this operation – physically bringing the trucks into the building –
contributes to the scale of the structure and how often the trucks are operating
in the building. Mr. Hutchinson said the building is basically down to the
absolute minimum size; it was much larger originally and the building is as
tight as it can be and still have a good, quality operation. He said as far as
trucks inside the building, that operation is not done that often. Mr. Carmine Russo, who lives directly across the street from
the plant, asked if there was an odor from the discharge in the waste holding
tank, and Mr. Hutchinson said no. Mr. Russo expressed other concerns regarding
the drain and its appearance, the generator and noise associated with it,
wildlife, and safety issues. Mr. Brian Dunlap, Reservoir Ridge Road, asked what the
reservoir will look like when fully operational at 2 million gallons a day, and
Mr. Hutchinson said the levels could go down during the course of the use of
water, particularly in the summer. Mr. Dunlap asked if there would be an odor
with the lowering of the reservoir, and Mr. Hutchinson said it’s been down in
the past prior to 1995, and he did not recall that there was any noted odor or
any complaints of odor. Mr. Dunlap asked if there could be a mosquito problem if
the water goes down, and Mr. Hutchinson said he did not believe so. Mr. Dunlap
asked about the noise level associated with the pumping of the tanks, and Mr.
Hutchinson said there is no noise. Mr. Dunlap asked about possible accidents
with the pumping of chlorine, and Mr. Hutchinson said there is no health hazard,
it is a liquid not a gas – the dangerous chlorine is gaseous, and if there was
a spill on the ground, it would be immediately cleaned up. There being no further questions from the public, Mr. Weiss
called upon Mr. Salvatore Lauro. Mr. Lauro introduced himself as a licensed architect with
Lauro Associates in Kenilworth, New Jersey, and offered his credentials. Chairman Giordano asked for questions from the Board and
public regarding Mr. Lauro’s qualifications as an architect, and there were
none. Mr. Lauro described the building as very prominent using
different colors of neutral stone, and they lowered the building and tried to
minimize the doors by curving them. Mayor Pierson noted his preference for using a brick front. Mr. D’Emidio inquired as to the dimensions of the building,
and Mr. Laura stated that the building is 82’8” length, 76’8” width, and
34’ high. Mr. Lauro noted that the two sides of the building were lowered from
the original design because there isn’t any equipment on the roof now and
without the equipment, they were able to lower the building. He said it is a
steel frame structure with masonry. Mr. Lauro said the cobblestone color is
neutral earth tone and the final colors will be dependent upon the contractor
selected, but the color is in that range. Chairman Giordano asked Mr. Lauro to comment on the delta
between the current footprints and the previous one. Mr. Lauro said that two
full bays had been eliminated on the first floor and three full bays in the
basement, which is approximately one third of the square footage of the building
being reduced. There being no further questions from the Board, Chairman
Giordano asked for questions from the public. Mr. Shatken noted the view of the building as you come down
Cold Hill Road and given that it cannot be shielded, he suggested that whatever
equipment, fans or small units that go on the roof be painted the same color as
the roof. Mr. Brian Dunlap said that the two huge tanks are eyesores
and asked if there was any way they could be camouflaged. Mr. Hutchinson said
they can be painted any color but it’s hard to not make them look like water
tanks. He said that the ground level tanks are painted forest green or a brown
color and that usually works well in wooded areas. There being no further questions from the public, Mr. Weiss
called upon Mr. Wilkerson. Mr. Clifford Wilkerson offered his credentials as Senior Vice
President and Chief Engineer with Hatch Mott MacDonald, formerly Killian
Associates. Chairman Giordano asked for questions from the Board and
public regarding Mr. Wilkerson’s qualifications as an architect, and there
were none. Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Wilkerson if was familiar with the
project and had reviewed the reports from the experts, particularly from Messrs.
Kimball, Aubin, and Maser, and Mr. Wilkerson said yes. Mr. Weiss referred to the Kimball & Kimball reports dated
November 22, 2002, and April 22, 2003, and the comments regarding the generator
that are set forth in the April 22 letter. Mr. Wilkerson described the purpose
of the generator is to provide emergency standby power and is approximately 4’
above grade and the enclosure is 9’ high, and this addition was asked for by
the client. He further stated that the 65 decibels at the property line are
standard noise reduction. Mr. Wilkerson referred to the plant sign to be constructed on
the facility, and Mr. Weiss entered the detail of the signage location into the
record as Exhibit A-4. Mr. Wilkerson described the signage and indicated that it
is the same masonry construction as the building. A full discussion continued
regarding the signage, the size of the sign, the lettering, the Mendham Township
Ordinance, and the goals of the Master Plan. Given the Board’s concern with complying with the Ordinance
and keeping the sign improvements consistent with the resident character of the
area, Mr. Hutchinson said he will bring the signage issue back to the
Authority’s Board for reconsideration. Mr. Wilkerson referred to the November 22, 2002, letter from
Mr. Kimball, which addressed two Master Plan considerations – fencing and
lighting. Mr. Wilkerson said that the chain link fence will surround the parking
area and roadways, and the fence is chain link and PVC coated. He said there
will be lights above the door and would like to keep them on typically and there
are spotlights, which would normally be off. He said the spotlights are 150
watts and the smaller lights will be 75-100 watts. Mr. Wilkerson referred to the November 19, 2002, letter from
Mr. Aubin, and there are four issues that need to be address by the Authority.
Regarding Item 1, Mr. Wilkerson stated they do have a permit from MCSCD and are
in full compliance, and there was discussion about additional measures to be
taken by SMCMUA. Items 2, 3, and 4, which are all of a similar nature, were
reviewed by Mr. Wilkerson. Mr. Wilkerson referred to the letter from Maser Consulting
dated April 28, 2003, and said that Item 1 is the same item as discussed with
Mr. Aubin and Mr. Kimball. He said that Item 2, the soil erosion and sediment
control plan has been submitted to the MCSCD and they have received approval. He
said that Item 3 regarding the landscaping plan has been discussed by Mr.
Hutchinson. Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Wilkerson to address the question raised
earlier concerning placing the tanks below the surface. Mr. Wilkerson said these
two steel tanks need to be constructed above grade because they contain
activated carbon which is discharged through the bottom of the tank and needs to
be accessible at the bottom and the top. Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Wilkerson if there was any engineering
reason for the height size of the building. Mr. Wilkerson said that the
treatment equipment in the building runs basically across the front bay from the
front of the building to the back of the building. He said that 80 percent of
the building needs to be that high because of the importance of doing loading
and unloading inside the building. He said that no further expansion or
additional bays are contemplated for this building. Mr. Wilkerson stated that
the square footage of the existing plant facility is 3500 feet; the facility
proposed in November of 2002 was 9500 feet; and the current building proposal is
6350 feet. He further stated that the height to the low roof is 17’ and the
height to the top roof is 34’. There being no further questions from the Board, Chairman
Giordano asked for questions from the public regarding Mr. Wilkerson’s
testimony. Mr. Dunlap asked for clarification of the tanks and life span
of the tanks. Mr. Hutchinson said that the tanks are not that old, and in order
to reduce the size of the building was to reuse the elements that could be
reused and those are the elements that could be reused. Mr. Wilkerson said that
once the tanks are sandblasted and repainted, their life span could easily be 20
years. Mr. Balut stated that his questions regarding soil erosion
and landscaping had been addressed, but raised several questions regarding storm
water, which Mr. Wilkerson addressed. Mr. Kimball stated that most of the points in his report have
been addressed, but suggested that the way the resolution be structured is in
accordance with the section of the MLUL, as opposed to the specific regulations
of the Township, so that any recommendations made by the Board are based on the
goals of the Master Plan. Mr. Aubin stated that he had spoken with Mr. Wilkerson
earlier and he is satisfied with what they are doing to mitigate the
environmental impact of construction. Mr. D’Emidio made a motion to the open the meeting to the
public; Mrs. Kinsel seconded the motion, vote all aye. A resident expressed his concern that the SMCMUA is not bound
by anything that occurs in this meeting and it is up to the citizens and the
Board to maintain the character of the community. He made a suggestion for
augmenting the budget for this project through some other means, such as the
Open Air Fund. Mr. Shatken provided comments as a resident, member of the
HPC and as an architect. He said that Mr. Ray Nadaskay, who is also an
architect, had reviewed this project. Mr. Shatken said that industrial building
in such a pristine area is very difficult and the goal should be to make
whatever is built as harmonious as possible. He offered the following
suggestions: 1)
elimination of the parafits on the walls of this
building that extend beyond the height of the building; no architectural reason; 2)
break up the side facades to help mitigate the size of
the building; 3)
use of very few articulations of different materials
on the front of the building; prefer to quiet the building down; 4)
main entry door is nice and reminiscent of other bar
doors, but on the other side there are two utility doors of a different scale; 5)
use as much trees and vegetation as possible to
conceal the building so it is nestled in the landscape; and, 6)
the tanks should be painted green, as well as the
emergency generator, electrical substation, to mitigate impact. Mr. Shatken said that if another venue for review members of
this community were offered, he would volunteer to see if some of the changes
could be fixed. Mr. D’Emidio made a motion to the close the meeting to the
public; Mrs. Kinsel seconded the motion; vote all aye. Chairman Giordano outlined the following recommendations to
be included in a resolution noting that the Planning Board has reviewed this
project: 1)
color of the fence 2)
colors with the respect to the plan for the façade 3)
agreement to make a modification to the draining pipe
at the pond; cutting pipe back and put wrip-wrap around the base of the pipe 4)
attempt at a design that more closely mirrors the
surrounding residential character of the neighborhood to quiet the building 5)
side doors to have same doors as on front of building 6)
smaller sign or no sign 7)
landscaping. Mayor Pierson made a motion pursuant to the MLUL Section 31,
the Planning Board reviewed and made recommendations for the project SMCMUA
seeks to construct on Block 118, Lot 9, known as Clyde Potts; Mr. Timpson
seconded the motion, vote all aye. ORDINANCE 9-2003
Mr.
Mountain offered a brief background on the history of this ordinance and
explained that there was concern raised about the home occupation ordinance and
uses and impacts on neighboring properties, particularly those that utilize
equipment, vehicles, and other types of accessories associated with a home
occupation that are not consistent with the residential character of the
community. He said this Ordinance attempts to tighten definitions with respect
to use, accessory uses, and attempts to insert language that provides greater
buffering to neighboring properties. Mr. Mountain further described a suggested
change by Mr. Roger Clapp to a paragraph on page 2 in section 8, and a full
discussion continued. Mrs.
Kinsel moved to approve Resolution PB-03-13 for review and approval of proposed
Ordinance 9-2003 following referral and review thereof by the Planning Board;
Mr. Timpson seconded the motion; vote all aye. CONSERVATION
EASEMENT ORDINANCE Mr.
Falcon explained that the last time the Planning Board reviewed this Ordinance
it was overbroad and difficult to define. He said that Sarah Dean Link, Roger
Clapp and himself pared down the Ordinance, and a full discussion continued. Mrs.
Kinsel made a motion to prepare a memo forwarding this draft conservation
easement ordinance to the governing body for introduction; Mr. Timpson seconded
the motion, vote all aye. CORRESPONDENCEChairman Giordano referred to the correspondence items, and
there was no discussion. Mayor Pierson said that Mr. Kimball had provided a
presentation to the Township Committee on lot size averaging and would like to
update the Board. He said that the Township Committee agreed that we should move
forward in developing an ordinance that would allow lot size averaging and with
that endorsement, he and Jack Schrier met with the Irene’s. The Mayor said
that they made their presentation, and the Irene’s said they would consider
it. The Township Committee and Planning Board has felt it would be worthwhile
drafting a lot size averaging ordinance and the idea of having the Master Plan
subcommittee work on this had been discussed. Mr. Mountain stated there was a
budget issue, and if Mr. Kimball is able to provide a budget projection for his
work, there may be room within the legal budget since it is an ordinance. After discussion, it was determined that Mr. Mountain will
call the members of the Master Plan Subcommittee and ask them to get this
underway. Chairman Giordano recognized a member of the public in the
audience and offered him the opportunity to speak. Mr. Jim Sheehan identified himself as the most affected
neighbor on Beverly Drive associated with the Irene’s Spring Tree Farm
application, and he asked if there were any results from the recent site visit.
Mr. Balut advised that he had met with the engineers and Mr. Irene this
afternoon and reviewed the reports and recommendations. Mr. Balut believes that
it is Mr. Irene’s opinion that he wants to get approval because he is fearful
of some of the new legislation being proposed but appears to be willing to look
at any new ordinances that come along and for some realignment of the roads. Mr.
Balut indicated that he is pushing for elimination of the access from Beverly
Drive, and they said they wanted to look at it but would like to move forward
parallel with getting an approval to preserve their rights. Mr. Kimball said
that he had had an opportunity to present a design point of view to Mr. Irene as
far as advantages not only to the Township but marketing and value advantages
for Mr. Irene, and he thought he was very receptive. Chairman Giordano advised the Board that he had received
comments from some residents who are having difficulty hearing the proceedings,
and he reminded the Board that the sound system is designed for the utilization
of the microphones. ADJOURN
There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn
the meeting. The motion was seconded, all aye, and the meeting was
adjourned at 11:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Hope Warrington, Secretary |
|
