ROLL CALL:

Mr. Rodzinak – present                        Mrs. Joanne Kane - present                             

Mrs. Knapp – present                           Mr. Leven – present                            

Councilman Kurdyla – present               Mayor Flannery – present

Chairman Fross – present                      

Ms. Barbara Kane, Alt. #1 - present     

Mr. Hayes, Alt. #2 – present

Others present:  Board Attorney Thomas Collins, Township Engineer Bob Bogart, Township Planner Scarlett Doyle, Dara Moschetta

SALUTE FLAG:

There was salute to the flag.

APPROVAL OF BOARD MINUTES:

March 13, 2007 Regular Meeting – Motion by Mr. Leven, second by Mayor Flannery, the Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes of March 13, 2007 were adopted as presented on unanimous voice vote of those present.

MEMORIALIZATION OF RESOLUTIONS:

SJP PROPERTIES

Block 411 Lot 39.07 (600 Somerset Corporate Boulevard)

#63-06-PB – Request for Extension of Prior Approval – Preliminary & Final Site Plan (Bldg. VI)

DECISION: Approved with conditions 2/26/07

Motion by Mr. Rodzinak, second by Mrs. Knapp, the resolution memorializing the approval with conditions for the above referenced application was adopted as amended 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:        None

            NOT ELIGIBLE:         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

DECISION: Approved with conditions 2/26/07

Motion by Mrs. Knapp, second by Mrs. Joanne Kane, the resolution memorializing the approval with conditions for the above referenced application was adopted as amended 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:        None

            NOT ELIGIBLE:         Councilman Kurdyla, Mrs. Barbara Kane

------------------------------------

SCAVO, VITO

Block 424, Lots 16 (535 Country Club Road)

#640-06-PB, Minor Subdivision w/variances (create flag lot)

DECISION: Denied 2/26/07

Motion by Mayor Flannery, second by Mr. Rodzinak, the resolution memorializing the denial for the above referenced application was adopted as amended 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:        None

            NOT ELIGIBLE:         Councilman Kurdyla, Mrs. Barbara Kane

------------------------------------

Ms. Scarlett Doyle, Board Planner recused herself at 7:25 and left the meeting room.

LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS:

HABITAT FOR HUMANTIY

Block 300 Lot 14 (140 Southside Avenue)

#52-06-PB, Preliminary Major Subdivision (9 Lots)

Time: 4/1/07

John T. Lynch, Esq. was present to represent the applicant.  The following witnesses were sworn in: Thomas J. Fik, P.E. and Pamela Ely, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity. Attorney Lynch gave a brief summary of the applicant’s proposal noting that this application is for preliminary major subdivision to create nine (9) building lots and a detention basin. He added that the site is bounded by Southside Avenue to the North and by Raritan River to the south. The applicant wishes to dedicate extra land along Raritan River and arrangements have been made with Somerset County subject to the Planning Board’s approval. An open space lot from the existing single lot is also proposed. In addition, it was noted that all proposed lots are conforming. He then invited his first witness, Pamela Ely. 

Ms. Ely discussed the workings of Habitat for Humanity noting that they are a non profit organization that builds homes for people in need of affordable housing. She discussed the process which entails purchasing land from private owners, acquiring the necessary approvals e.g. Board approvals, they then contract out services such as engineers and architects and then depend on volunteers to help them build the homes. The families who will eventually buy the Habitat homes are required to put in labor hours on these houses.

Ms. Ely testified that all the families selected to purchase the Habitat for Humanity houses are people with low incomes and with a great need for housing. They also have to be responsible enough to be able to repay their loans. Habitat requires that their applicant’s work with other agencies such as COAH, a non profit organization that has a fine education program that prepares people for home ownership and other housing opportunities. Applicant’s also go to credit counseling. All the applicant’s once selected have to go to a great deal of finance training to ensure that they are well grounded and are able to manage their homes. Ms. Ely noted that this is part of Habitat’s Commitment to the Community.

Habitat homes are deed restricted for 30-years which means that when a Habitat owner wants to sell their property before the thirty year deed restriction period is up, they can only do so to another low income buyer. The amount of increment in resale value is determined by the State and COAH. Depending on the economy, it is between 0% and 6%. Ms. Ely noted that the term of the mortgage is dependant upon a families’ income and their personal situations such as health issues.

Ms. Ely discussed the type of homes proposed for the site in question and the type of homes that Habitat usually builds. She also discussed the developments surrounding the site in question noting that the applicant’s proposal will conform to the surrounding neighborhood. These were also expressed in exhibits which were marked into evidence as follows:

A-1                3/26/07           Photoboard of pictures showing types of homes built by Habitat including

                                    ranch and two-story designs

A-2      3/26/07            Photoboard of pictures showing homes and developments surrounding the

                                    site in question

Ms. Ely concluded her testimony and Chairman Fross invited the Board to ask questions.

Mr. Leven wondered if preference in the selection process is given to those people that currently reside in Bridgewater. Ms. Ely noted that it is not possible to do that due to COAH regulations. Homes are therefore marketed to the surrounding Counties which in this case include Somerset, Hunterdon and Middlesex. Bridgewater residents are given the opportunity to apply but due to COAH regulations, they cannot have preference over people from other Counties. Mr. Leven then asked Board Attorney Collins if Bridgewater gets extra credit in its COAH obligation since Habitat is only focused on low income housing as opposed to moderate income. Mr. Collins confirmed that we do not get extra credit but the rules require that a certain percentage meet moderate to low income

Board Attorney Collins wondered how many bedrooms will be in the proposed homes. Ms. Ely confirmed that they will all be three (3) bedrooms.

There were no additional questions from the Board. Chairman Fross opened the hearing to the public for questions and there were none. He therefore closed the public portion of the hearing.

Attorney Lynch invited his next witness, Thomas J. Fik, PE who was previously sworn in. He presented his professional and education background and the Board accepted his credentials. He also presented and discussed in detail an exhibit which was marked into evidence as follows:

A-3      3/26/07            Colored rendering showing the existing conditions of the site prepared by

                                    Thomas Fik, PE of B2A consultants dated 3/13/07

Mr. Fik testified in detail with regard to the applicant’s proposal noting that the property in question is located in the R-10 zone and measures approximately 6.7 acres. The Raritan River runs along the rear of the lot. Currently, a two-story dwelling with a shed exists on the property. The applicant proposes to construct nine (9) residential lots and a new cul-de-sac off Southside Ave.  

Mr. Fik described the subdivision plans to the Board.  He explained that the lots will all be serviced by public water and public sewer.  He explained the drainage plan of the property and the flood plain line.  He explained that the property is a knoll in the area and is higher than the surrounding flood plain.  He also explained that as a result of the drainage plan, the proposed roadway will generally drain towards DEP required swales and drainage will be directed to the existing public street (Southside Avenue) and then along Southside Avenue, a short distance to a storm drain inlet to the proposed detention facility on the site.  Mr. Fisk also explained the detention facility on the site noting that it will comply with all Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS) and the Stormwater Management Regulations of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).  He explained that the stormwater basin will have an infiltration singe bottom which will allow for infiltration of the required water quality treatment for total suspended solids removal.  He also explained that the outlet structure of the detention basin will have a weir, which will prevent a backflow of water from the flood plain into the detention basin.  He explained that the 100-year storm flood elevation in the area is 49 feet based upon the NJDEP mapping.  Board Engineer Bogart confirmed that the flood plain of the 500-year storm and 100-year storm are very similar in said area and were recently revised by NJDEP. 

Mr. Fik described the drainage plan to the Board.  He also indicated that the Applicant is prepared to widen the roadway to 24-feet with curbing on each side provided there are cutouts acceptable to the Township Engineer to allow drainage of the street to enter upon the NJDEP required swales along the side of the road.  He explained the nature of the construction of the swales and that they will have an appearance from the ground as being grassed areas.  He also confirmed that there will be swales between the lots of a modest nature which will direct drainage and drain the lots.  In addition, he explained that the proposed housing elevations will all be at least 8 feet above the 49-foot flood elevation and that the road itself will be approximately 8 feet above the flood elevation.  He also explained that the access to the site in a 100-year flood event would still be available through Loeser Avenue to Southside Avenue and that the entirety of the existing roadway in that direction is above the flood elevation of 49-feet.

Mr. Fik confirmed that the Applicant has obtained a Letter of Interpretation (LOI) from the NJDEP with a 50-foot transition area an averaging permit to allow the stormwater management discharge pipe to enter into the transition area.  He explained that the Applicant has also obtained a NJDEP stream encroachment permit for fill in the flood plain to be approximately 5% where a maximum of approximately 20% is permitted and that the Applicant will comply fully with both the LOI and the stream encroachment permit.  He also confirmed that the Applicant is fully complying with the Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS) and the stormwater management regulations of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).  With respect to the RSIS, he did request a de minimus exception to allow there to be sidewalk on only one side of the street where the RSIS would technically require it on both sides of the street.  The Board Engineer concurred in the recommendation of the sidewalk on one side of the street particularly in view of the extremely limited nature of the subdivision and the limited size of the neighborhood. 

Chairman Fross opened the hearing to the Board for questions

Mr. Leven asked Township Engineer Bogart if it was his recommendation that the road be widened to 24-feet. Mr. Bogart confirmed affirmatively. The applicant agreed to this recommendation. Via the questions from the Board members, it was confirmed that the applicant does not anticipate flood problems and therefore flood insurance has not been considered.

Mayor Flannery noted that she visualizes that it would be unlikely for a homeowners association of low-income households to be able to afford the responsibility of maintenance of the detention basin in this particular case and therefore recommended that the Council consider accepting a dedication of the stormwater management basin and its future maintenance as they do others throughout the Town.

Chairman Fross opened the hearing to the public for questions and/or comment. There were none. Chairman Fross closed the public portion of the hearing.

Attorney Lynch gave a closing statement while urging the Board to approve this application.

Chairman Fross opened the Board for deliberation. The Board discussed appropriate conditions including:

·          Compliance with the report of the Township Engineer dated 3/6/07

·          The Applicant shall enter into a developer’s agreement with the Township Council of the Township of Bridgewater addressing the subsidies from the Housing Trust Fund and the thirty-year deed restrictions, the perpetual maintenance of the stormwater management basin and its potential acceptance by the Township of Bridgewater and any other issues required by the Township Council.

·          The Applicant shall record the conservation easement 50-feet from the flood elevation in the areas not including the detention basin and 15-feet for the area adjoining the detention basin in view of the detention improvements proposed.

·          The Applicant shall coordinate its tree removal with the Shade Tree Commission and with the Township Engineer’s Consulting Planner at Maser Consulting.

·          The Applicant shall provide a 24-foot wide paved road with curbing on all sides and coordinate the swales and cutouts in the curbs with the Township Engineer.  The road shall provide for parking on one side but no parking on the cul de sac.

·          The road shall be revised to remove the island from the center of the cul de sac and to eliminate the elm tree in said area provided that the Applicant demonstrates to the Township Engineer, by letter from an arborist that the elm tree should be removed or the elm tree is unlikely to survive.  The Applicant shall record easements on and with the plat confirming that the swales shall be kept free and clear of structures and obstructions and that the Township shall have the right, but not the duty, to enter upon the swales to ensure their free-flowing nature.  The Applicant shall also provide information with the sales contracts and deeds to explain how the swales shall be maintained and kept free of obstructions. 

·          The Applicant shall utilize the increased marketing recommended by Ms. Ely to help ensure that Bridgewater residents are aware of the availability of the low income housing.

During deliberation, Resident William Hammerdorfer, 140 Southside Ave came forward and was sworn in. He confirmed that he has been a resident of Bridgewater for 50yrs and lives at the site in question. He testified that during the worst floods, the area in question has never encountered flood problems.

Motion by Mr. Rodzinak, second by Mayor Flannery, the foregoing application was approved with the conditions discussed on the following roll call vote:

AFFIRMATIVE:          Mr. Rodzinak, Mrs. Joanne Kane, Mrs. Knapp, Councilman Kurdyla, Mr. Leven, Mayor Flannery, Chairman Fross

          OPPOSED:        None

ABSTENTIONS:         None

ABSENT:        None

            NOT ELIGIBLE:         Mrs. Barbara Kane, Mr. Hayes

------------------------------------

BAL MIDDLEBROOK CROSSING, LLC

Block 821 Lot 24 (US Highway Route 22)

#55-06-PB, Preliminary Site plan with Variances

Time: 4/27/07

Geoffrey D. Soriano, Esq. was present to represent the applicant.  He described the application.  The facility is for assisted living.  It contains 7 acres in a C3 zone.  There will be a 3-story addition for 14 additional units.  Pre-existing variances include side yard Ordinance requires 75' whereas 63' is proposed.  Front yard, 200' is required, whereas 148' is proposed.  Parking 100' is required, whereas 80' is proposed.  He invited his first witness, Anthony Daltrui. He presented his background and the Board accepted his credentials as having familiarity with the prior operations of the facility.

Anthony Daltrui testified that he was involved with the 1996 application as the applicant.  The site was developed in accordance with that application.  Mr. Daltrui testified on the operation (financial) of the site.  In 2000, another application was made for 8,000 sq. ft. two-story adult day care office building. This was approved, but never implemented.

Board Attorney Tom Collins asked about adequacy of parking.  Mr. Daltui stated that at the 5^th anniversary party there was an overflow onto the office building next door (142 spaces).  There has never been a situation of inadequate parking since they are permitted to use the parking area next to this site.

Board Member Beth Knap asked if the easement would survive title.  Attorney Soriano stated that it would.

On question of Board Engineer Bogart, witness stated that a walkway with staircase was added to facilitate the cross easement.  The bottom floor of this building is a renal treatment center, which has more that adequate parking.  The shared parking arrangement benefits from off-peak parking.  There is currently 10,000 SF in this building available.  Future parking on the BAL site was never required to be "banked".

Councilman Kurdyla indicated that there have been times that parking was difficult to find, although he never was forced to use the adjacent parking lot.

Board Member Leven asked what capacity is available from the adjacent parcel?  Mr. Soriano indicated that the terms and conditions will run with the land and grant the right to use available parking.  Specific numbers of stalls were not known.

Chairman Fross opened the public portion of the hearing for questions.

There were no questions from the public.

Chairman Fross closed the public portion of the hearing.

Geoffrey Soriano invited his next witness, Mark S. Mayhew, engineer who was sworn in.  He presented his professional and educational background and the Board accepted his credentials.

Mr. Mayhew presented exhibits which were marked into evidence as follows:

A-1      3/26/07            Colored rendering entitled "Site Display Plan"

Mr. Mayhew defined the variances needed, as previously noted by Anthony Soriano. He described the area around the building, the parking lot, landscape and wooded areas.   There are no changes to parking lot or driveway.  Fifty four (54) parking spaces exist today and no additional spaces are proposed.

Building footprint 4,300 SF is proposed

Total Floor area 12,800 SF for the 3 story building is proposed.

Steep slope calculations are shown on the plans.  They meet the Hillside Ordinances for FAR and impervious coverage.  The reports of the Planner dated March 19, 2007 and Engineer dated February 26, 2007 and March 20, 2007 were discussed. 

Mr. Mayhew stated that the applicant will work with the Planner on landscape material. The Engineer's report noted traffic counts revealed peak hour usage of  36 cars out of 54 available spaces.  Applicant agreed to conduct additional traffic studies, but Engineer Mayhew does not believe this is warranted.   He believes that ADA is satisfied per the Township Ordinance.  ITE studies suggest fewer spaces than is required by the Township Ordinance. ITE would require 40 to 41 spaces, of which 3 spaces would be ADA accessible.  Traffic counts were taken on Monday, September 18, 2006.

Mr. Mayhew does not see that blocking off spaces during construction will adversely offset circulation. The applicant agreed to submit a circulation plan for this temporary situation. 

Mr. Mayhew stated that the retaining wall that will be constructed is actually an extension of the loading dock.  This extension is acceptable as noted in the LOI approval received by the State.

A conservation easement will be executed for the wetlands, per the requirements of the LOI.  The applicant agreed to comply with the reports of the Engineer.

Board Engineer Bogart recommended obtaining information from the adjacent site plan, and noted that he endorses the ITI methodology. 

With regard to the 1996 Resolution, Board Member Leven noted that it seems to indicate that 68 stalls were proposed.  Mr. Soriano clarified the language which infers 60 parking spaces.  It appears that 60 spaces should have been installed instead of the 54 that currently exist.  Mr. Daltui did not recall that there were any modifications from the approvals previously granted.

Chairman Fross opened the public portion of the hearing for questions of the expert.

Brian Chorney, 1040 N. Mountain Avenue was present and was sworn in.  He asked about the adequacy of parking if he purchased the abutting property.  He asked if the subject property could be expanded further and how far back and how high it could go. 

Mr. Norman Holloway, architect stated that 3 stories is maximum and will be the same height of the existing building which is at 40 ft.

Mr. Soriano corrected the application request in that the parking deficiency is a design waiver, not a variance.  He suggested that the ITE standard should be used as a guide for parking in this instance.

Mr. Bogart and Mr. Leven both stated that more information is needed if this design waiver is to be considered by the Board. 

The applicant agreed to research the possibility of 60 spaces being required and they will have a weekend parking count done. 

Mayor Flannery suggested there be correlation between bed count vs. parking.  Parking spaces needed from (old resolution) should be researched and reported on.

The Board observed that they would not be able to finish this application.  The applicant agreed to carry the hearing for this matter to April 10, 2007.  No further notice is required.

BOARD BUSINESS

The Board did not conduct any other business.

ADJOURNMENT:

It was the consensus of the Board to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:30 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Grace Karanja

Planning Board Administrative Assistant

ADOPTED 4/10/07