UPPER TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 15, 2010
The regular meeting of the Upper Township Planning Board
was held at the Township Hall, 2100 Tuckahoe Road, Petersburg, New Jersey at
7:30 p.m.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Present:
Daniel Bready (7:40) William Brown, James Kelly, Gary Riordan, James Schroder,
Donald Kissling, Janet McCrosson, Susan Ragan, Chair Renee Scrocca.
Absent: Frank
Conrad and Mayor Richard Palombo.
Also in attendance were Dean Marcolongo, Board Solicitor;
Paul Dietrich, Board Engineer; Shelley Lea, Secretary.
A motion was made by Mr. Schroder and seconded by Mr.
Kelly, to approve the minutes. In
favor: Kelly, Riordan, Schroder,
Kissling, McCrosson, and Scrocca.
Abstain: Brown, Ragan.
Applicant is requesting preliminary and final subdivision
approval for a 3 lot major subdivision at 1861 Route US 9 South, Seaville.
Jon Batastini, Esquire, represented the applicant.
He stated that this could be a minor subdivision except that it had been
previously subdivided. The
applicant plans to create 3 lots (17.01, 17.04 and 17.05).
Although Lot 17.01 exceeds the lot area requirements a lot frontage
variance is needed to allow 110.97 ft where 140 ft is required.
Nick Holland, 69 Hope Corson Road, Seaville, was sworn.
He explained that he has Power of Attorney for his Father, John Holland.
A copy of the Power of Attorney, dated 6/12/00, was marked as Exhibit
A-1.
Mr. Holland testified there are 3 existing lots.
They are proposing to create an additional 2 lots that would front on
Route 9. A 40 ft wide access
easement is proposed along the southwesterly line of Lot 17.05 and a 25 ft wide
access easement is proposed along the frontage of Lot 17.05.
They plan to apply for Farmland Preservation and sell the development
rights for lots 17.03, 17.04 and 17.05.
There are wetlands on lots 17.01 and 17.02.
Mr. Batastini requested the Board allow the applicant to
request both preliminary and final subdivision approval at the same time and
waive the requirement that each is approved separately since the subdivision is
technically a minor subdivision.
Mr. Dietrich agreed this would be a minor subdivision if
approvals were granted more than 2 years ago.
Existing Lot 17.01 needs to be changed to proposed lot 17.06.
Solicitor Marcolongo requested that a revision date be added to the plan.
The meeting was open to the public.
Hearing no response the meeting returned to the Board for findings of
fact.
MR. BROWN Nick Holland is appearing on John Hollands
behalf. Nick Holland has Power of
Attorney. Mr. Holland is the owner
of Block 567, Lot 17.01. A lot
frontage variance is being requested.
This is a request for preliminary and final approval for a 3 lot major
subdivision at 1861 Route 9 in Seaville.
The purpose is to determine the value of the lots for Farmland
Preservation.
MR. KELLY The applicant has submitted plans dated January
2010. A copy of the Power of
Attorney, dated 6/12/00 was marked as Exhibit A-1.
Lots 17.03, 17.04 and 17.05 are being sold for farmland preservation.
The Board Engineer has asked that the lot number be changed to reflect
17.06 rather than lot 17.01. The
Board Solicitor has asked that the revision dates be shown on the plan.
MR. RIORDAN The applicant is seeking a waiver of the time
to allow preliminary and final approvals to be granted at the same time.
MR. SCHRODER Nothing to add.
MR. KISSLING He concurs.
MS. McCROSSON Nothing to add.
MRS. RAGAN Nothing to add.
MRS. SCROCCA Lot 17.01 requires a lot frontage variance,
however the lot is over 8 acres.
She believes the benefit of granting this variance would outweigh any detriments
and can be granted without impairing the intent and purpose of the zoning
ordinance.
A motion was made by Mr. Kelly and seconded by Mr. Kissling
to grant preliminary and final major subdivision approval and lot frontage
variance with the condition that the applicant revise the plans to show a
revision date and the correct frontage of 110.97 ft, and revise the lot number
so that Lot 17.01 is now 17.06, and the standard conditions.
In favor: Brown, Kelly,
Riordan, Schroder, Kissling, McCrosson, Ragan, and Scrocca.
Application is for amended site plan approval and variances
to allow a monument sign and for the number of signs on site along with
directional and menu board signs at the proposed Burger King at 4 Roosevelt
Boulevard in Marmora.
Mr. Brown stepped down during discussion and voting on this
application.
Richard Carlucci, Esquire, represented the applicants.
Edmond C. Speitel, Professional Engineer, was sworn.
Mr. Speitel testified that a 3,000 sq ft fast food restaurant was
previously approved in this location as part of the original site plan.
The proposed Burger King is 2,910 sq ft.
When they received approvals several years ago the restaurant was in the
same location 93 ft off the right of way line.
A front yard setback was never requested or granted.
To comply with the setback requirement they would have to remove 7 ft of
the landscape buffer. He believes
that the requested front yard setback is a reasonable request.
Mr. Speitel testified that variances are needed for the
proposed signs. A variance is
needed to allow 2 signs on the building.
A variance is needed to light the two signs on the east and the north
side of the building.
Mr. Speitel testified the Board originally granted
variances to allow 3 freestanding signs.
There is currently 355.62 sq ft of freestanding signage where only one
100 sq ft sign is permitted. They
are seeking one additional monument sign, approximately 60 sq ft to be located
on Roosevelt Boulevard directly in front of the building.
This sign would be the Burger King logo with a reader board.
The reader board would conform to the ordinance and would change every 8
minutes. The monument needs to be
located closer to the road so that it is visible from the intersection and when
coming around the curb on Roosevelt Boulevard.
They are also proposing 3 directional signs, 5 sq ft each where 2 ft is
permitted. The directional signs
would be located at entrance off Roosevelt Boulevard, one on site and another on
Tuckahoe Road. The signs would be 5
ft off the ground.
Mr. Schroder made the comment that the signs are overkill
and that the proposed directional signs are advertisement signs and not
directional. Mr. Kelly stated that
he agrees with Mr. Schroder. He
believes the building mounted signs make sense but he is not in favor of the
monument sign.
Mrs. Scrocca stated the signs are overkill.
She referred to a Burger King in Cape May Court House.
Ms. McCrosson stated that the location of the proposed monument doesnt
make sense since the sign is even with the existing pylon sign in front of the
property. Mr. Riordan discussed an
existing Burger King in Vineland, New Jersey.
He stated that the circle signs at this Burger King are much smaller and
still grabs your attention. He is
concerned about safety and that granting the variance for the signs would make
it
necessary to grant variances for all the other stores in
the shopping center. Many of the
board members agree the directional signs need to be lowered and the size
reduced.
Mr. Carlucci stated that the monument sign is needed for
safety reasons. This sign is not
only for the residents but also for visitors that are not familiar with the
area.
Mr. Speitel testified they are proposing a 0 setback for
the monument sign where 30 ft is required.
The sign would not be located in the site triangle.
They believe the proposed brick face monument sign would be more
attractive.
Eric Salisbury, Managing Director of Cape Atlantic Food
Services, was sworn. Mr. Salisbury
testified that approximately 60 to 65 percent of the business is generated by
the drive thru. The 2 proposed menu
boards would help to move the cars along quicker in the drive thru.
The directional signs are important so that vehicles do not enter the
drive thru the wrong way.
Mr. Salisbury testified there are 2 proposed drive thru
windows to speed up the process. He
stated that the handicap parking spaces are proposed against the building to
meet the ADA requirements. He also
stated this is the basic sign package for Burger King.
Chair Scrocca suggested the applicant review the
architectural section in the ordinance.
She commented that this is the gateway to the community and the proposed
faηade is not aesthetically pleasing.
She stated that the building is very plain and not attractive.
Ms. McCrosson agreed. Mr.
Schroder stated that not enough information has been provided to the Board.
He wants color renderings to better understand what is proposed.
Mr. Speitel testified the front yard setback has no
detriment to the public. The sign
package is mostly for aesthetics.
He feels the lit signs and the monument sign are significant to the site due to
the proximity to Route 9. He
believes the directional sign is needed and he agrees that the signs in the site
triangle need to be lower. He feels
the requested variances meet the criteria for a C2 variance and can be granted
without impairing the intent of the zoning plan.
He sees no detriment to the public.
Christopher Scarborough, member of SP Marmora, was sworn.
He testified that he has given consent to make this application.
The meeting was open to the public.
Andrew Bulakowski, New Jersey Regional Council of
Carpenters, Cape May County, was sworn.
He has spoken to Mr. Salisbury about the project.
He feels this will be a good project and will provide construction
opportunities. He stated that
members of the Council of Carpenters are present.
Hearing no further comment the meeting returned to the
Board for findings of fact.
MR. KELLY Cape Atlantic Food Services Marmora, LLC, are
before the Board regarding Block 651, Lot 1, located at 4 W. Roosevelt Boulevard
in Marmora. The Floor Plan by Ragan
Design Group is dated 5-25-10. The
site plan by Speitel and Speitel, Inc. is dated 7-19-07 and last revised 8-5-10.
The applicant is requesting preliminary and final site plan approval and
variances for a monument sign, directional signs and building mounted signs.
The 7 ft front yard setback was shown on the original plan.
Richard Carlucci, Esquire, represented the applicant.
Eric Salisbury testified in regards to the application.
Edmund Speitel, Engineer, reviewed the proposed signage.
Andrew Bulakowski indicated the Burger King could be a benefit to the NJ
Regional Council of Carpenters. MR.
RIORDAN The applicant is requesting relief of the 100 ft setback and sign
variances. Mr. Bulakowski supports
the local carpenters. Mr. Speitel
testified that granting the variances would be a benefit.
However he feels the opposite in regards to the signs.
He believes the numerous sign variances are a detriment.
MR. BREADY He believes there are too many signs proposed.
He feels the Board members need more information.
MR. KISSLING He believes the lit sign by the entrance is
a good idea. He finds the monument
sign to be offensive.
MR. SCHRODER He finds the presentation was not
appropriate. There were no color
renderings of the proposed signs or site.
He finds it difficult to visualize how the signs would look.
He also finds that the sign package as presented is a detriment in many
ways. He does not like the design
of the building.
MS. McCROSSON She concurs.
The additional lit signs on the building benefit the applicant and not
the public. The signs were not
included in the site lighting and she feels there is no benefit in regards to
safety. She finds the sign on
Tuckahoe Road is more of an advertisement than a safety feature.
She would like the applicant to come back with a plan for a building that
is more aesthetically pleasing.
MRS. RAGAN She agrees the building needs more style.
She feels that a sign is needed that is visible from Route 9.
She feels the sign on Tuckahoe Road could be a problem, however the
directional signs for the drive thru are needed.
CHAIR SCROCCA She stated there are houses in visual
distance of the shopping center.
She has concerns about granting the proposed signs and other signs in the
future. She finds the proposed signs are a visual overload.
She finds the setback variance to be diminimis and would mess up the
turning radius if the building had to be relocated.
She feels the monument sign is overkill and is a distraction.
The directional signs are too big and too high and are for advertising
and not safety.
Mr. Carlucci requested to table the application until
August 19, 2010 to make changes to the plan.
Chair Scrocca announced that no further notice would be required.
Mr. Dietrich reviewed a report that he received the night
before from Marsha Shiffman, Professional Planner in regards to the rezoning of
a site in Seaville to MH. The
property was not included in the 2008 Fair Share Plan as a Mobile Home
designation. Ms. Shiffman has done
an analysis and finds the site could meet some of the housing needs.
He discussed regional contribution with Woodbine.
This matter will be discussed further at a later date.
A motion to adopt the resolution was made by Mr. Schroder,
seconded by Ms. McCrosson, and approved.
Abstain: Brown, Ragan.
A motion to adopt the resolution was made by Mr. Riordan,
seconded by Ms. McCrosson, and approved.
Abstain: Brown, Ragan.
A motion to adopt the resolution was made by Mr. Riordan,
seconded by Ms. McCrosson, and approved.
Abstain: Brown, Ragan.
A motion to approve the bills was made by Mr. Schroder,
seconded by Mr. Kelly, and approved.
A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. McCrosson.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by,
Shelley Lea
Zoning Officer