BRIDGEWATER TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Monday, February 26, 2007
—MINUTES—
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Chairman Fross called the meeting of the Bridgewater Township Planning Board to order at 7:00 pm at the Bridgewater Township Municipal Court, 505 Route 202/206 North, Bridgewater, New Jersey.
OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT ANNOUNCEMENT:
In accordance with the requirements for the Open Public Meetings Act, this meeting was noticed on January 19, 2007. Notices were sent to the Courier News and The Reporter and were posted in the Bridgewater Township Municipal Building at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. All requirements of the Sunshine Law have been met.
Please be aware of the Planning Board policy for public hearings: no new applications will be heard after 10:00 pm and no new testimony will be taken after 10:15 pm.
ROLL CALL:
Mr. Rodzinak – present Mrs. Joanne Kane - present
Mrs. Knapp – present Mr. Leven – present
Councilman Kurdyla – absent Mayor Flannery – present
Chairman Fross – present Ms. Barbara Kane, Alt. #1 - absent
Mr. Hayes, Alt. #2 - present
Others present: Attorney Thomas Collins, Township Engineer Bob Bogart,
Township Planner Scarlett Doyle, Land Use Administrator Marie Broughman
SALUTE FLAG:
There was salute to colors.
APPROVAL OF BOARD MINUTES:
January 22, 2007 Regular Meeting – Motion by Mayor Flannery, second by Mrs. Joanne Kane, the January 22, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes were adopted on unanimous voice vote of those present.
MEMORIALIZATION OF RESOLUTIONS:
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AUGUST, 2006
DECISION: Adopted by the Planning Board on 11/6/06
Motion by Mrs. Joanne Kane, second by Mrs. Knapp the resolution memorializing the approval of the Stormwater Management Plan Amendment August 2006 on 11/6/06 was memorialized on 2/26/07 on the following roll call vote:
AFFIRMATIVE: Mrs. Joanne Kane, Mrs. Knapp, Mr. Leven, Mayor Flannery,
Chairman Fross
OPPOSED: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Councilman Kurdyla, Mrs. Barbara Kane
NOT ELIGIBLE: Mr. Rodzinak, Mr. Hayes
------------------------------
SOMERSET COUNTY – Richard Hall Community Mental Health Center
Block 500 Lot 60 & 62 (North Bridge St & Vogt Drive)
#58-06-PB, Site Plan (Renovations and Additions for RHCMHC)
REVIEW & RECOMMENDATION: 1/22/07
Motion by Mayor Flannery, second by Mr. Rodzinak, the resolution memorializing the review and recommendation provided on 1/22/07 was adopted, as amended, on 2/26/07 on the following roll call vote:
AFFIRMATIVE: Mr. Rodzinak, Mrs. Joanne Kane, Mrs. Knapp, Mayor Flannery,
Chairman Fross
OPPOSED: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Councilman Kurdyla, Mrs. Barbara Kane
NOT ELIGIBLE: Mr. Leven, Mr. Hayes
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS:
SJP PROPERTIES
Block 411 Lot 39.07 (600 Somerset Corporate Blvd)
#63-06-PB, Request for Extension of Prior Approval – Preliminary & Final Site Plan (Bldg. VI)
Chairman Fross asked Attorney Collins to summarize the purpose of this application.
Board Attorney, Tom Collins, discussed the concept and authority for the extension of site plan, including a short account of the history of the office complex. Attorney Rob Silverstein, General Council for SJP Properties represented the applicant. The extension is requested for a period of 3 years.
In a letter, dated Feb. 21, Scarlett Doyle states planning issues are satisfied. Tom Collins indicated there are additions to the extension:
a) The 2% COAH Developers fee will be paid
b) Additional landscaping will be provided along Commons Way
c) Developer’s Agreement regarding parking to be coordinated with the beautification of Commons Way
Mr. Leven asked attorney Collins for criteria to grant this extension, they are as follows:
Extent to which the applicant has relied on the prior approval.
Weigh the equities. Applicant has completed almost 100% of site improvements and 70-80% of building improvements.
Chairman Fross opened the meeting to the public. No public comments were offered.
Motion by Mr. Rodzinak, second by Mrs. Joanne Kane, the foregoing application was approved for a three year extension of prior approval beginning on August, 2007, with conditions that there be compliance with the Engineer’s and Planner’s report on the following roll call vote:
AFFIRMATIVE: Mr. Rodzinak, Mrs. Joanne Kane, Mrs. Knapp, Mr. Leven,
Mayor Flannery, Mr. Hayes, Chairman Fross
OPPOSED: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Councilman Kurdyla, Mrs. Barbara Kane
-----------------------------------------
BRIDGEWATER ODC, LLC c/o Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Block 112 Lots 1.03, 3 & 4 (756 Route 202)
#04-07-PB, Site Plan Waiver Application
Time: 45=3/26/07
Engineer Robert Bogart advised that acoustical expert, Edward Clark, of Ostegaard Assoc. was present to advise the Board. Attorney Tom Collins summarized the case and discussed the site plan waiver concept. This authority is granted in the Municipal Land Use Law.
Goldman of Drinker, Biddle & Reath represented Goldman Sachs Group and gave a brief history of the prior approval which included three buildings, Phases I, II and III.
Phase I of the development is the subject of this application. This was approved for a 1,200-1,300 employee office complex. Goldman Sachs Group wishes a 256,000 sq. ft. data area + 10,000 sq. ft. for office use. There will be approximately 35-40 employees. There will be no driveway connection to Milltown Rd. The project looks the same, except for less improvements driven by fewer employees (parking, lighting, etc.)
The following witnesses were sworn: Dino Fusco, Goldman Sachs Group; Brian Lainson, Pennoni Assoc.; James Perry, Cerami & Associates; Jan Gross Gensler; Greg Farnum, Pennoni Assoc.
Dino Fusco was presented as the representative of the Goldman Sachs Group. Mr Fusco
testified as to the background of the company and the need for a data center. Data is required to be backed up. It made good business sense to maintain this data in a suitable location. Suitability of location is 90 miles from Manhattan. Other factors influenced the decision to locate in Bridgewater, including the size of facility, favorable location in a quiet & stable community, an educated potential work force which is close to amenities for the need 35-40 employees.
He stated that the Goldman Sachs Group will be discrete and does not need signage. They will keep a safe & secure site. They will appoint a person in charge of this facility as a contact. There is a sense of urgency to occupy before 2009.
Board member Leven questioned what assurance is there that the use will not change over time?
Attorney Richard Goldman responded, stating that Phase I is for the data center. There is no other plan for this building.
Board member Leven asked if more parking is needed, and can the Board request that The Goldman Sachs Group be required to return?
Attorney Tom Collins responded that this concern is already in the Ordinance. Since they are relying on the warehouse use for parking, any change must be brought back to the Board
Brian Lainson, of Pennoni Associates, presented his engineering credentials. He reviewed the existing conditions plan from the plan set. He reviewed the site and uses in the immediate vicinity.
A-1 Exhibit is similar to Sheet C1001. Overall site colored map superimposed over aerial. Lainson described the proposed building, access roads, detention, driveway and utility yard. He contrasted this with the prior approved plans which had extensive parking and an extension to Milltown Road. The Milltown Road detention basin will be landscaped. They will mill and pave a portion of Milltown Road. Location of the fence will be as per prior approval. The entire perimeter will be chain link (vinyl coated) except that an architectural fence will be installed along the 2 roadways instead of chain link.
A-2 Exhibit is similar to Sheet C2001- Colored Landscaping plan. The exhibit demonstrated a squared-off portion of building with cooling towers, chilling, trash area located in front of the building and generators and transformers located in the rear of the building.
All equipment will have a screen wall. The service yards are not roofed. The applicant met with the Fire Chief and provided an access driveway as requested.
Mr. Lainson described site topography and vegetation, noted there is public water and public sewer accessibility. As compared to the approved plans, the improved lot coverage was reduced from 38% to 25%. The F.A.R. dropped from .27 to .14. No additional permits or variances will be required in this application.
Mayor Flannery asked if the 9’ high screen would sufficiently shield chillers from visibility. Mr. Lainson stated that the chillers will not be visible since they are much lower than the height of the screen. Mr. Fross discussed lighting for the parking lot.
Mr. Lainson reviewed lighting which will measure 3 foot candles around the parking area, but the light poles will be installed at 15’ high. Shoebox fixtures will be on all night, but the applicant is willing to work with police because perhaps not all lights will be needed. They will have 0.0 foot candles at the property lines.
Chairman Fross opened the hearing to the public at 7:58 pm.
Resident Brian Pratt asked if heat exchange equipment would be a closed loop. If it is not closed, there is potential for a “mist column”.
The system will not be closed loop. It will be open and therefore condensate of a “mist column” may be visible. This is more often found in the cooler weather. Closed systems are not energy-efficient; there is a 35% efficiency gain over a closed system. A mist column would be seen on foggy days which may be visible. On a clear day, a shorter mist column may be experienced.
Resident Jim McGuire asked, what is to be done with the existing monitoring wells. How will the wells be accessed if they are 50’ off the property line. He has no trees and does not like the appearance of chain link as will be visible from his back yard. The applicant agreed to put trees in the areas where there are no existing buffer trees. The applicant will want the wells on the other side of the fence, not Mr. McGuire’s side.
Resident Bob Clark, 111 Timothy Lane, noted that the fence abuts 22 homes 50’ within the conservation easement. How will this be done? He also asked if the area in the C-1 zone on Milltown Road was to be a detention basin/conservation easement.
Attorney Goldman responded that they wished not to change the prior approval with regard to the fence. The conservation easement must be maintained, and text of the deed and the developer’s agreement would assure this. With respect to the C-1 zone, they are seeking this to be part of the Phase II or III portion of the project. It would be premature to fix the use of the area in the C-1 zone.
With no further questions from the public, Chairman Fross closed the public portion of the meeting.
Jim Perry- Acoustical Consultant was qualified and sworn in. He described the major noise producing sources:
a) On the Northwest corner, there are HVAC chillers & cooling towers. The nighttime level of 50 dba is to be met both day and night.
b) Generators located on the South side of property will have factory enclosures plus the screen wall. These are emergency generators. This will also meet the 50 dba by day & night. They will be tested weekly, two at a time, ½ hr each and then 1 hour with all generators running plus 2 days per year, a 24 hour test running test is required. When all generators are running, the state regulations of 50 dba (night time standard) will be met.
Ambient noise at the property line is 47 dba currently. The dba is a logarithmic function. The noise from the equipment will be audible from the outside, but not likely from the inside of the houses. Noise levels will be consistent with state night time regulations during all hours
Township acoustical witness, Edward Clark, Acoustical Engineer was sworn in and accepted as a qualified professional.
Board member Leven asked the applicant’s acoustical expert if this equipment was to meet the 50 dba at the residential side. What analysis was done, and why was there a 3” thick soft material?
Mr. Perry stated that he made assumptions of flat plane and no trees. He used manufacturer’s data. The screen wall is to be an acoustical soft material. Thicker insulation has an improved noise attenuation characteristic.
Attorney Goldman added that Goldman Sachs wanted a full screened courtyard. The generators are emergency generators, and should seldom be used.
Board member Leven asked if it is possible to improve the acoustics.
Township acoustical expert Clark stated, that to do more than what has been done would be difficult. He added that trees will not offer a good deal of improvement to the acoustical characteristics.
Board member Leven asked if the equipment tests could be conducted at night.
Attorney Goldman responded that testing could be done other than at the 10 pm to 7 am (except for the 24 hour tests which require all day & night, but that is only 2 times per year.
Township acoustical expert Clark described the state regulations and how it protected conversations in day (65 dba) and sleep at night (50 dba).
Attorney Tom Collins asked if 24 hr tests could be done during a season when windows are likely to be closed.
The applicant suggested that they would check on this, noting that these tests are scheduled. They will work with the town for suitable dates for the 24 hour tests.
Mayor Flannery asked Mr. Clark whether there were any recommendations which should be considered as a condition of approval.
Mr. Clark suggested that the issuance of a C.O. should be conditioned on a noise test to meet the night time levels of 50 dba.
Chairman Fross opened the hearing to the public.
Resident Robert Clark noted that there was a train track in proximity to the site and that the whistle is at 4 am. He asked how this compared to noise anticipated from the site.
Mr. Perry stated that the train whistle is more than 15 to 20 dba over anticipated noise levels.
Greg Farnum, P.E., traffic consultant, was qualified and discussed conclusions of his traffic study.
Exhibit A-3 Bar Chart with estimate of vehicles for the prior approval versus the Goldman Sachs application. Was presented and demonstrated that levels would be much less with the Goldman Sachs application.
Exhibit A-4, Peak Hour/Trips Bar Chart was presented. Mr. Farnum described the chart showing existing 2002 facility, the Goldman Sachs proposal and the previously-approved site plan. He stated that the impact was that the proposed site plan exhibited a decrease in peak and total trips compared to the other plans. He concluded that the proposed parking is adequate for the needs of the site.
Chairman Fross opened the meeting to the public. There were no questions or comments.
Jan Gross, architect, was qualified and discussed elevations of the 266,000 s.f. building
A-5 Exhibit, colored rendering of floor plans, depicting equipment spaces. He indicated that only the blue colored portion would be occupied by people.
A-6 Exhibit, Rendering of Elevations. He explained that a screen wall would be constructed of CMU (concrete modular unit) which would be color matched to the building.
Goldman stated that the building will not emit lights to the neighborhood due to the single story, no window and screen wall effects.
Board member Leven asked if the building could be designed to be increased in height in the future.
Mr. Gross stated that this was not contemplated or evaluated in the scope of his architectural services.
On a question of Mr. McGuire, Jan Gross testified that the building would be fully sprinkled.
Resident Bob Clark asked what quantity of reserve fuel would there be on site. Mr. Gross indicated that there is 48 hours of reserve fuel, which would total 150,000 gallons of #2 diesel fuel, above-ground.
Chairman Fross closed the meeting to the public.
Discussion of conditions were considered by the Board.
a) Subject to Engineer Bogart’s letter dated February 20, 2007
b) Subject to Planner Doyle’s letter dated February 21, 2007
c) Screening of the HVAC system, if this equipment could be seen from roadways or residences.
d) Fencing on Milltown Road and Route 202 would have an aesthetic fencing, approved by the Planner.
e) The 100ft. deed of easement would be made part of Phase I and incorporated into a Developer’s Agreement.
f) Subject to the recommendation by the acoustic consultant that there be a noise test prior to issuance of a C.O.
g) The location of the fencing referenced to the monitoring well would be the subject of review by the Board’s engineer.
h) Infill trees will be planted to address visual buffering where there are no trees abutting the residences.
Motion by Mrs. Knapp, second by Mr. Rodzinak, the foregoing application for site plan waiver was approved with conditions on the following roll call vote:
AFFIRMATIVE: Mr. Rodzinak, Mrs. Joanne Kane, Mrs. Knapp, Mr. Leven,
Mayor Flannery, Mr. Hayes, Chairman Fross
OPPOSED: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Councilman Kurdyla, Mrs. Barbara Kane
-----------------------------------------
Chairman Fross called for a short recess at 9:05 pm and called the meeting back to order at 9:12 pm on the following roll call:
Mr. Rodzinak – present Mrs. Joanne Kane - present
Mrs. Knapp – present Mr. Leven – present
Councilman Kurdyla – absent Mayor Flannery – present
Chairman Fross – present Ms. Barbara Kane, Alt. #1 - absent
Mr. Hayes, Alt. #2 - present
Others present: Attorney Thomas Collins, Township Engineer Bob Bogart,
Township Planner Scarlett Doyle, Land Use Administrator Marie Broughman
------------------------------------------
SOMERSET COUNTY EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES COMMISSION – Capital Improvement Review & Recommendation
Block 303 Lot 5 (7 Finderne Avenue)
#05-06-PB, Site Plan (Renovations and Additions to its Bridgewater campus)
Victoria Vinci, AIA of USA Architects discussed the rehabilitation of the existing education building . There will be no expansion of the footprint or increase in square footage.
A-1 Exhibit Colored rendering of the exterior elevations of the proposed building. This included façade improvements which will be made to improve the overall appearance of the structure.
A-2 Exhibit Photos of the existing building
A-3 Exhibit Photos of the existing building
The architect discussed each of the exhibits, describing the architectural and visual upgrade that was proposed.
Dr. Thomas Boyle was sworn. Dr. Boyle explained that the purpose of the project is to increase the room for special education purposes. The increase will more conveniently serve the 100 students, 25 teachers and aides, secretaries that are on the site. There will be no change in effect on the neighborhood and there is currently sufficient parking on the site.
Board member Knapp asked if the grounds and the fencing would be improved. Engineer Thomas Malavasi stated that a new chain link fence with slats will be provided and the grounds will be improved. The entrance will be formalized
Planner Doyle recommended that the slats be installed at an angle so that the ‘picket fence’ effect might be avoided.
Motion by Mayor Flannery was made to confirm that the applicant has received Board input on this project, second by Mrs. Knapp, the foregoing site plan courtesy review and recommendations discussed was adopted on the following roll call vote:
AFFIRMATIVE: Mr. Rodzinak, Mrs. Joanne Kane, Mrs. Knapp, Mr. Leven,
Mayor Flannery, Mr. Hayes, Chairman Fross
OPPOSED: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Councilman Kurdyla, Mrs. Barbara Kane
----------------------------------------
SCAVO, Vito
Block 424 Lot 16 (535 Country Club Road)
#64-06-PB, Minor Subdivision w/variances (create flag lot)
Time: 120=5/9/07
Engineer Richard Pantel spoke on behalf of the application. He was sworn and qualified. Mr. Pantel described the property which is located in the R-40 zone. The property has 83,600 s.f. which is less than 3 acres due to the dedication of right of way which is part of the application.
A-1 Exhibit Colored rendering of Sheet 1 of 2 of the plans.
Engineer Pantel discussed variances for the existing house which are the side yard of 18.65’ and the front yard which is 49.4 feet. These are pre-existing variances. The applicant also seeks a lot width variance and flag lot variance since 35’ frontage is proposed for lot 16.02.
Mr. Pantel suggests that the rhythm of Country Club Road is in keeping with this plan. Most of the lots in the neighborhood have 120’ lot width which is short of the requirements of the zone. He stated that there are wetlands in the westerly portion of the tract and an isolation wetland is in the center (where the house would be located) and which would be filled. He recognized that the Master Plan suggested that flag lots be removed from the Ordinance. The Ordinance had removed flag lots as a development option.
The distance from the proposed dwelling to the nearest house is 185’ (Block 424 lot 13). Therefore, the house is far away from existing dwellings. Except for frontage, the lot is in keeping with the zone requirements. There would be little impact on the neighbors. West of the property is township-owned land.
Mr. Pantel discussed Mrs. Doyle’s letter, suggesting that many of the items could be addressed in design. He noted that a slab on grade may have to be constructed if the soils proved to be wet. Upon approval, he would investigate the soils.
Upon question of member Kane, Mr. Pantel advised that an L.O.I. from the state had not yet been requested.
Mr. Pantel again noted that the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance does not permit the flag lot geometry.
A-2 Exhibit House exhibit showing a 2 story building which was shown on sheet A-3 of the plans. Mr. Pantel noted that the depicted dwelling would not be the actual house, but t that the final house would fit within a 50’ x 80’ buildable area.
Mr. Pantel reviewed the comments in Mr. Bogart’s letter to the Board.
He stated that the roadway dedication will be defined as a condition of approval.
He stated that full construction details will show how the subdivision impacts the area from a stormwater viewpoint and that the plans will be revised to comply with the Ordinance.
On question from Chairman Fross, Attorney Tom Collins stated that this is a ‘c’ variance for the lot width and that the dedication of right of way prompts the need for the front yard variance. A flag lot variance is also needed. The applicant asserts that the application is for c-2 variance relief.
Chairman Fross opened the meeting to the public.
Resident James Llewellyn, 477 Garretson Road which is Lot 12, presented an exhibit which was marked as Exhibit O-1, which was a highlighted exhibit showing the contours and the subdivision. Wetland and impervious surfaces were identified on the exhibit. He was concerned about drainage.
Resident Paul J. Smith, 473 Garretson Road which is Lot 11, resides on lands which abut the property. He presented photos and Polaroids marked as Exhibits S-1 through S-8. They depicted back yard, flooding after a thunderstorm, a submerged footbridge and flooded areas with ripples of receding water at the foot bridge. He was concerned about the flooding potential for this subdivision.
Resident Mr. Chung Tien presented Exhibit T-1, a typed statement, since he was not comfortable addressing the Board in English. The Board and Mr. Pantel reviewed his letter which stated concerns over flooding and runoff. Mr. Pantel stated that dry wells were considered to deal with the excess runoff. A formal, detailed drainage and grading study would be conducted in the future.
Resident Richard Efland, Rolling Hills Road, disagreed in that he believes that a 3,500 s.f. house does not fit into the neighborhood, as asserted by Mr. Pantel. He believes that the entire project does not fit the neighborhood.
Resident Michael Schwartz, 575 Glen Ridge Drive, stated that a flag lot is not objectionable to him. The roadway must be repaired, however, if there is damage during the construction activity.
Board Member Hayes felt that the evidence presented did not warrant approval and he would not favor the application.
Motion by Mr. Hayes, second by Mayor Flannery, the foregoing application for minor subdivision, with variances, was DENIED on the following roll call vote:
AFFIRMATIVE: Mr. Rodzinak, Mrs. Joanne Kane, Mrs. Knapp, Mr. Leven,
Mayor Flannery, Mr. Hayes, Chairman Fross
OPPOSED: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Councilman Kurdyla, Mrs. Barbara Kane
BOARD BUSINESS
The Board did not conduct any other business.
ADJOURNMENT:
It was the consensus of the Board to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Marie L. Broughman,
Land Use Administrator
ADOPTED 3-13-07
