Chairman Van Nest called the Planning Board meeting of ...



Chairman Conard called the Planning Board meeting of June 02, 2011 to order at 7:30 p.m. All stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. The meeting took place in the courtroom of the Municipal Complex.

Chairman Conard announced the meeting has been duly advertised according to the Section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 231, Public Law 1975 (“Sunshine Law”).

ROLL CALL

|Mayor Gloria McCauley – Present |Sam Conard, Chairman – Present |

|Greg Burchette – Present |Steven Sireci, Jr., Vice Chairman – Present |

|Committeeman |Marian Fenwick – Present |

|Frank DelCore – Arrived 7:35 p.m. |Tod Mershon (Alt. #1) - Present |

|Steven Cohen, Secretary – Present |Daniel Marulli (Alt. #2) – Present |

|Douglas Tomson – Present | |

|Arthur Stafford-Taylor – Present | |

| | |

Also present were Robert Ringelheim, P.P., A.I.C.P., Township Planner; Eric M. Bernstein, Esq., Board Attorney (Eric M. Bernstein & Associates); William H.R. White, III, P.E., P.P., C.M.E., Board Engineer (Maser Consulting, P.A.); and Lucille Grozinski, C.C.R.

ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES

None

ACCEPTANCE OF RESOLUTIONS

None

PLANNING BOARD BUSINESS

None

SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORTS

None

BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR

None

CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES

None

PUBLIC HEARING – SUBDIVISIONS/SITE PLANS

• Primus Green Energy, Inc. – File # 11-PB-10-MSR - Block 200.04, Lot 6 – 219 Homestead Road.

Francis P. Linnus, Esq. representing Primus Green Energy, Inc. introduced the application. This application is for a Minor Site Plan with no variances.

Chairman Conard announced he would recuse himself from this application. Vice Chairman Sireci took over the Chair.

Mr. Linnus continued. The property is located in the Light Industrial Zone near the Conrail area. We have three witnesses who will be testifying: Bob Heibell from Van Cleef Engineering; Dr. Moshe Ben-Reuven, the CEO and Founder of Primus Green Energy. Primus Green has been in the Hillsborough Business Park since 1998. Finally, our architect, Carmen Cerminara will testify.

Vice Chairman Sireci announced Committeeman DelCore arrived.

Robert B. Heibell, P.E. and L.S. of Van Cleef Engineering was sworn in and gave the following testimony:

This application has no variances and/or waivers. The property is on the northerly side of Homestead Road and on the left side of the Exhibit marked A1-ID, which is exactly the same site plan the Board has before it with no additions. It is the second building to the east of Stryker Lane. This site is not part of Hillsborough Park but is owned by Larken Associates. All of the other buildings are part of Hillsborough Industrial Park. This is an out-parcel that happens to be owned by Larken. There is an approximate 35,000 sq. ft. industrial building on the property, some 43 parking spaces with a direct driveway access to Homestead Road on the westerly side. On the easterly side is another driveway which goes to existing loading docks on the easterly side of the building.

The proposal is to construct a pilot plant just over 4,000 sq. ft. on the northerly side of the building, 35 ft. away from the building. The pilot plant is an allowed principle use within the LI Zone. The pilot plant will be described by the architect but in layman purposes, it is a carport. It is a roof structure open on all 4 sides and separated from the existing building. It will be put on the existing impervious coverage which is the pavement, partially concrete. There is no increase in impervious coverage and it meets the setback requirements.

We have submitted the application to all of the relevant agencies including the Somerset-Union Soil Conservation Service where we are exempt since the only disturbance is for the columns; the Somerset County Planning Board whose report will be forthcoming to say the application is approved since it does not effect any of the County facilities. Although I sent it to the agency, currently the D & R Canal Commission is staffless so I do not have a response. I am waiting for the State to hire some employees at the Canal Commission so I can get the report back but once again, this will be exempt from their rules and regulations since we are not adding any more impervious surface.

We have three internal reports. The Fire Commissioner’s report addresses a sprinkler system. One will be installed. The Applicant will also abide by all of his requests. We also have Mr. Ringelheim’s report which addresses the parking. There are 43 existing spaces; we are required to have 50. However, part of the application involves us re-striping the loading area in the southeast corner of the existing building where we can stripe 17 parking spaces. That would give us 60 spaces, 10 greater than required by ordinance. That will still leave a 40 ft. driveway to go to the back. There is an existing fence on the easterly portion. Primus Green will construct a 5 ft. high fence paralleling Homestead Road, and along the westerly and northerly property lines so that the entirety of the site will be within a 5 ft. high chain link fence. On both of the entries there will be a keypad and sliding gate. We will provide Mr. White with the details.

I have had the opportunity to speak with Mr. White about all of the comments in his May 25th report. He points out there will need to be 3 handicap spaces, there is 1 existing. We may lose 2 spaces but have more than enough spaces to do so. There are other small comments within Mr. White’s report which the Applicant has agreed to do.

There is an existing sign that parallels Homestead Road that does not show on the site plan. I did not realize it was even there since it is hidden in the landscaping between two evergreens. The Applicant is going to propose to take down that sign and construct a monument sign perpendicular to Homestead Road which will be totally conforming within the constraints of the LI Zone. The current sign has the names of all the multi-tenants currently in the building. Primus Green will actually occupy the entire 34,500 sq. ft. and will be the only tenant, should the Board approve this application. They currently occupy a portion of the building and will be moving over the rest of their facility which is in a portion of Hillsborough Industrial Park.

On May 23rd, we reviewed the application before the Environmental Commission. The EC did not have any engineering issues but did have some questions regarding the lighting facilities which will be addressed by the architect. There is a question regarding the NJDEP and the air permit. The Applicant is about to submit that permit and has had pre-construction meetings with NJDEP. Any approval of this application will be subject to receipt of that permit. The Applicant would ask that rather than that be a condition of signing the site plans as approved, they would ask to have it as a condition as receipt of the CO. They are very confident they will get the permit, so much so that they would construct the pilot plant prior to getting the final NJDEP air permit approval.

Mr. Linnus asked if there would be a similar request for the D&R CC.

Mr. Heibell said yes, only because I do not control it and do not know when they are going to be staffed. The hope is that they will produce a staff who will produce a report but we cannot guarantee that. We hope to have it by the time they get the Building permit but we would ask to have it as a condition of the CO.

Vice Chairman Sireci said the Environmental Commission also mentioned the loading/unloading plan.

Mr. Linnus said the architect will testify to that.

Mr. Mershon asked if the Applicant wants the 5 ft. fence because of security or is it a requirement of Mr. White.

Mr. Heibell said the Applicant wants it.

Mr. White asked how refuse and recycling will be handled.

Mr. Heibell said currently there is a dumpster but no dumpster enclosure. Near the northeast portion of the building they are not using all of the loading docks. It is an 80 ft. wide area. We will construct a dumpster within a fenced enclosure. I will provide you with the standard Township details.

No further questions from the Board’s professionals.

Open to the Public

Susan Gulliford – Hunt Club Road

• Ms. Gulliford said when I looked at the file I saw something about a storage tank for bio-gasoline. What size is it and where is it located?

Mr. Heibell said the architect will speak to that.

Ms. Gulliford asked, this being a pilot plan, is this the first time something like this is being built?

Mr. Heibell said it will more or less be discussed by the next witness but pilot plants were introduced as a principle use within the LI Zone. I do not know that there are any other pilot plants currently in my knowledge, within Hillsborough.

Mr. Linnus called Dr. Moshe Ben-Reuven who was sworn in and gave the following testimony:

Dr. Ben-Reuven said I am a Co-CEO of Primus Green Energy. We have been in Hillsborough since 1998.

Mr. Linnus asked Dr. Ben-Reuven to explain what the current operations consists of.

Dr. Ben-Reuven said the pilot plant we are looking at is a proof of principle of a concept. It is in a size that is reasonable to take after in the direction of commercialization. It is not a commercial site and is not to be operated continuously. It is first to show us that this principle is working. We are taking clean wood pellets and converting them to bio-gasoline which is a totally usable product at the end. The entire process under the canopy will likely occupy part of it.

Mr. Linnus asked about the number of employees and hours of operation.

Dr. Ben-Reuven said we currently have about 30 employees. We will be using an additional 20 employees with the pilot plant to allow us to go further with our designs and operate the technology as necessary by technicians, engineers, and so forth. The normal hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to the evening. During the times that continuous tests are being performed, it would extend to after hours, maybe 24 hours at a time, and then eventually to full demonstration runs or endurance tests that would take approximately 100 hours or 4 days continuous without break on stream. Otherwise, they are sporadic tests, typically 4 or 6 hours, or so.

Mr. Linnus asked what do you anticipate the truck traffic to be for the new operation.

Dr. Ben-Reuven said a truck every 10 to 14 days for the wood pellets. Every so often when we have the tank ready to empty we will take it in the 55 gallon drum. The operation is not supposed to make volumes of product. It is supposed to show the principle. The pellet truck would be a 4,000 cf. trailer. The fuel truck is supposed to be small. Just enough to carry one drum.

Mr. Stafford-Taylor said I am also a member of the Environmental Commission and was at that meeting. I heard your presentation so I have a good idea of what it is you are planning here. You clarified that the final product will be a gasoline product. Whatever is produced from this pilot plant is not for commercial use and not to be made in volume. It is to be used for testing, possibly for Government agencies such as the Air Force. How many 55 gallon drums will you have at any one time out of the storage tank, the big holding tank that stores the product at the end of the process?

Dr. Ben-Reuven said there may be one 55 gallon drum at a time waiting to be picked up.

Mr. Stafford-Taylor said the Applicant has kind of satisfied us as far as the loading/unloading. We have asked for a plan to show where the trucks are going to be picking up from and to make sure there is a safety procedure in place in case there is a spill.

Ms. Fenwick asked if there was any consideration to exploring local resources for the wood pellets.

Dr. Ben-Reuven said for quite a number of years we were trying to set ourselves up here making pellets but it is nearly impossible to get this type of an air permit for this type of operation in New Jersey. This is the reason why we have to import them from wherever they are. We tried it in Burlington and here but it is impossible to make those pellets here. This is a commercially product we are using in bulk. It is the same as you would buy in Home Depot. We wish we could make them but I think the drying process is a little dusty so that may be why it is so difficult to obtain these licenses. It does not impact our ability to show the process. Otherwise, we are definitely using local talent as much as we can.

No questions from the Public.

Carmine Cerminara, AIA of Cerminara Architect was sworn, provided his qualifications and gave the following testimony:

Mr. Cerminara said Exhibit A2-ID – Architectural Drawing is exactly as submitted to the Board. It shows the structure of the building which is as described, a carport. It has a 30 ft. clear height to the underside to the low point of the roof.

Underneath there is going to be a partial 2nd floor if you will, which is really more of an equipment platform. If you look at our building from west to east, you have the full height to your availability and then down below on the eastern end is where the equipment level will be, approximately 1/3 of the area. This is where the main process will occur. This is also where the collection tank will occur at the end of the process and the removal of the gasoline will take place.

Mr. Linnus asked Mr. Cerminara to address the comments of Mr. White’s report.

Mr. Cerminara said we have a shop drawing we sent off to Mr. White earlier today via e-mail. It is a double-walled storage tank similar to what you find contained for diesel fuel. It will be a 500 gallon self contained tank. This used to be a multi-tenant building with offices in the front and tailgates in the back. In working with Bob we selected a spot that would not impact the loading docks at all. We are not a trucking operation and do not need the tailgates. Therefore, all of the parking spaces were striped in that location. We will need water, gas and electric. All exist on site and will be brought to the structure.

The building itself has a roof pack and wall mounted lights around its perimeter which are used to light up the current parking and trucking area. We propose no changes to that existing lighting at all in terms of site lighting. We will have lights mounted underneath the structure and underneath the platform. The lights will be mounted in such a manner that they will shine on the process itself internally to each other. We do not see any unusual spillage or glare as we talked about at the EC meeting.

Mr. Linnus asked Mr. Cerminara to address the comments in the Environmental Commission report.

Mr. Cerminara said it is our intent that at the east end of the structure, for the entire 28 ft. width of the structure, to create a “u” shaped speed-bump, for lack of a better term. Inside that speed-bump area is where the tank is going to be mounted and proposed. The transfer from the storage tank into these 55 gallon drums will occur within that area, the back wheels of the truck will be within that area, and the forklift will operate within that area. If there is an accident as the 55 gallon drums are being lifted onto the truck, there will be barrels of an absorbent material alongside in a readily available manner, so that someone could pick up very quickly and put down this absorbent material without it going anywhere. This speed-bump we are creating will contain it and keep it from flowing across the entire parking lot.

Mr. Linnus displayed Exhibit A3-ID - Proposed Sign and asked Mr. Cerminara to review it. Mr. Linnus reiterated there is an existing sign on the site. Should the Board approve the proposed sign; the existing sign will be removed.

Mr. Cerminara said the proposed sign is a two-sided sign, perpendicular to Homestead Road, closer to the entrance drive for the car parking, as opposed to the truck parking. We are looking to put a 2 ft. high base to match the existing building. On top of that will be an acrylic panel in a soft white look. We will mount back lit letters to that so that there will be no lights shining or glow. The letters will look as though they are floating along the white panel. We will be using LED lighting to make these things smaller and will float better. The sign is conforming in all respects with the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Stafford-Taylor asked Mr. White, are you satisfied with their solution to contain the area should a spill occur?

Mr. White said I assume the purpose of the bump is to contain it so it will give you one point of access where you would dump the absorbent material. As long as they have enough absorbent material they should be able to contain it very quickly. That is something you can require as a condition of approval. I am sure DEP will have something along those same lines. They should have a spill kit to begin with but it sounds as though they are going to go above and beyond.

Mr. Burchette said I agree they are going above and beyond. Owning a business that deals with many 55 gallon drums of petroleum products, OCEA requires an overpack that takes care of the whole situation. Will you have overpacks standing by?

Mr. Cerminara said we comply with all codes and regulations in every way shape and form.

Mr. White said you made reference to a 500 gallon storage tank. I have the shop drawing of a cylindrical tank. Will it be above ground or below ground?

Mr. Cerminara said it will be an above ground tank stored below the platform at the east end of the building.

Mr. White said it sounds like this could be a 24-hour operation for a period of time. We are looking to make sure that the light in the parking lot for the employees and anyone visiting the site is sufficient to satisfy the Township Ordinance. I do not have anything that would demonstrate that so I would need some lighting levels. I would recommend the Board require lighting levels so they are in compliance with the Ordinance.

Mr. Cerminara said we are working with a lighting manufacturer. We do now have the photometrics of the light fixtures we are proposing and what they will spill out. At a point, somewhere around 50 ft. around the perimeter of our building, they will be at an average of 3 ½ ft. candles and that still puts us 40 ft. away from it. I will gladly provide you with what I have.

Mr. White said looking at the parking lot where the employees are going to park; it looks like it will be more than 50 ft. from the building. I do not know what the coverage is there for the existing lights.

Mr. Cerminara said I will provide you with that information.

No questions/comments from the public.

Mr. Linnus said this concludes the testimony.

Close Public

Mr. Cohen said it is nice to see an application where the sign is conforming with the Ordinance.

Eric Bernstein, Esq. said there are two questions raised by Mr. Linnus. One is the DEP permit, as well as the DRCC issue. What does the Board want to do as far as requirements relative to those reports/permits?

Vice Chairman Sireci reviewed the request is to make the issuing of the CO subject to the NJDEP permit and the DRCC permit should that agency have employees at some point. So the plan will be approved but they will not get the final Certificate of Occupancy until those things occur.

Board members said that would be fine.

Mr. Ringelheim said normally those permits would be required in the development process before the plans were signed which would hold up the construction for an indefinite period until the permits were obtained. What this would do is waive this until the time of the CO, which would allow the Applicant to get the plans signed and construct the facility at their own risk. Hopefully, right before the time of a CO, the permits would get approved and issued and sent to us.

Mr. Bernstein said the concept of the DRCC is “if applicable” and if they exist. Obviously, you cannot hold up an entire application on an agency that may never exist again.

Vice Chairman Sireci said the implication of not filling the jobs is that somebody is intending for it not to continue to exist.

Mr. Bernstein said the bigger issue is, as Mr. Heibell indicated, if DEP does not grant a permit, they will have to take the whole thing down. As for the DRCC, we technically do not have a choice. We can obviously put the language in assuming the permits are applicable and they continue to exist.

Committeeman DelCore said I just want to put a qualifier in there so that down the road if it does not exist, we will not have to come back and get a waiver for that.

Mr. White said there is no increase in impervious surface and the DRCC probably will not require it. I would be more concerned with the air permit but I am sure they have already worked toward that otherwise they would not be making this investment.

Mr. Bernstein said once the resolution is drafted, Mr. Linnus, Mr. Heibell, the Board and all its professionals will have an opportunity to review it. We should all be able to come up with the agreeable language to qualify the issues.

A motion to approve application #11-PB-10-MSR with all of the qualifiers described was made by Mr. Burchette, seconded by Mr. Cohen.

Roll Call: Ms. Fenwick – yes; Mr. Tomson – yes; Mr. Burchette – yes; Mr. Stafford-Taylor – yes; Mr. Cohen – yes; Mr. Mershon – yes; Committeeman DelCore – yes; Mayor McCauley – yes; Vice Chairman Sireci - yes. Motion carries.

• Southeast Investments, Inc. – File #11-PB-09-SRV – Block 181, Lot 2 – 381 Route 206.

Lawrence Cohen, Esq. of Courter, Kobert & Cohen, representing Southeast Investments, Inc. stated this is an application for the construction of a Chase financial center on the existing property that previously housed the Charlie Browns restaurant. Tonight we plan to have our project engineer, Robert Heibell; engineer in charge of the design of the project as far as the building and signs, Glen Phillips and Robert Spevac from Chase to testify. Also available are the traffic consultant and environmental consultant should any issues arise.

Robert B. Heibell, P.E. and L.S. of Van Cleef Engineering was sworn in and gave the following testimony:

Mr. Heibell reviewed the Exhibit A1-ID – Exhibit Plan. The board on the right is the existing features plan, which is actually Sheet 2 in the set of plans. That represents the site as it currently is showing the existing, now vacant, Charlie Browns restaurant plus parking. The building is about 5,000 sq. ft. with approximately 65 parking spaces. Currently the lot is covered

with 71% impervious surface. The property is in the Gateway A District which allows a maximum of 60% impervious surface.

The lot size is 1.41 acres; the allowable in the GA District is 2 acres.

At one point in time, going back to the 1980’s the lot was about 1.9 acres. Andrea Avenue went straight and then ‘T’d’ into Hamilton Drive. At one point there was an acquisition toward the road so that now it swings into Hamilton and NJDOT has acquired some property along there so the current acreage is 1.41 acres.

To the east of the property is the firehouse plus Hillsborough Radiology. The parking for that facility and the driveway is within 5 ft. of the property line for this site.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said so there is no property adjacent to this property which is not being used that could be acquired to make it a conforming lot.

Mr. Heibell agreed.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said you are also a Professional Planner. In your opinion, is that something that uniquely effects this piece of property.

Mr. Heibell said it effects it in that the minimum 2 acres is not a goal that the Applicant can achieve without either acquiring the public right-0f-way back or the parking area which is used for the parking lot of Hillsborough Radiology. Exhibit A2-ID – Exhibit Plan is a composite of 2 of the sheets within the set of plans the Board has; a composite of the site plan sheet and the landscaping plan.

Answering the questions asked by Mr. Cohen, Esq., Mr. Heibell said the building to be constructed is 4,120 sq. ft. The Ordinance in the Gateway A District requires that the building height be 30 ft. Since this is a one floor building it has been specifically designed for the Gateway A District in Hillsborough. The height of the center core of the building meets the requirement.

There will be two main entrances. There is an entrance off of the easterly portion of the building which is where the proposed 26 parking spaces are. There is also an entrance on the Route 206 side of the building. Under the Ordinance 12 spaces would be required, we are providing 26. The drive-up facility is not adjacent to the bank. It is on the southeast portion of the property as you come in off of the proposed driveway off of Andrea Avenue which is about in the same location as at Charlie Browns. The 3 lane ATM and drive-through facility is straight ahead. The inner lane is for drive-through where you can do banking business; the center lane is for ATM; and there is a bypass lane to go past the ATM. The access onto Andrea Avenue is full access with all turning maneuvers allowed. The exit/entrance onto Route 206 will be right turn in/right turn out only. The existing driveway on Route 206 is partially on this site and partially in the NJDOT right-of-way. That will be removed. That currently allows and exit only onto Route 206.

We are reducing the existing impervious coverage from 71% to 41.3%. The allowable is 60%. The portion of parking area in the southeast portion of the property will be taken out and lawn area will be put in. Similar to what occurs now, there is a storm drainage system currently on the Charlie Browns property. It ties into an inlet at the northwest corner of the property within the DOT right-of-way. We are going to remove the existing storm drainage system, collect it and pipe it out to exactly the same inlet. Part of the application submitted to NJDOT involved a connection to that inlet for the drainage purposes. We need approval from NJDOT. We would be discharging less drainage than presently being discharged from the site. The roof drains would be tied into the site.

There are shade trees proposed within the parking lot. Mr. White asked that we modify the species but not the number. We have also proposed some landscaping along Andrea Avenue. We have some higher level shrubbery in front of the 3 parking spaces perpendicular to Andrea Avenue to shield the headlights. There will be some low landscaping around all 4 sides of the facility. At this point in time, the Applicant would rather make a contribution for street trees to the Township to finalize its cross section for Route 206 after the Bypass has been completed, rather than put in a species of tree that may or may not be the species the Township is going to choose.

We have the 50 ft. right-of-way, unlike most lots in that location. We will be taking out the existing sidewalk and are proposing a 5 ft. wide sidewalk which parallels Route 206 and allows and entrance to our side of the building from Route 206 in compliance with the Ordinance. We have not shown any sidewalk along Andrea Avenue. In his report, Mr. White asks that we connect the Route 206 sidewalk internally within the project. What we would do is continue the sidewalk paralleling the northerly side of Andrea and then hook it into the sidewalk. The Applicant would be willing to make that connection. The Applicant requests that the Board take the in lieu of contribution per foot rather than construct the sidewalk along Andrea all the way to Hamilton.

In the Gateway A Zone the minimum floor area ration (FAR) is 25%. In order to meet that at this site, the bank would have to have upwards of some 18,000 sq. ft. We are at 6.6% which would require a bulk variance. I seriously doubt we could build a building which meets the 25% FAR and does not exceed 60% maximum impervious coverage.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. asked Mr. Heibell to review the comments of Mr. White’s June 01, 2011 report.

Mr. Heibell said I have had the opportunity to speak with Mr. White about every single item in his report. Some of the other witnesses are going to address the issues of the sign and perhaps lighting. As for the engineering aspects, there is no dispute between Mr. White and myself and/or the Applicant.

On the south side of the building we will have a 10 ft. wide sidewalk where we propose a bicycle rack. The lighting plan has been revised twice now. It is my understanding that the Applicant is not seeking any waivers for the lighting. All of the lighting does not exceed the 15 ft. within the Ordinance. The lighting plan submitted had 7 lighting fixtures that parallel Route 206. Pursuant to my conversation with Mr. White, they are going to be removed from the lighting plan. They are not required under the Ordinance.

Mr. Ringelheim asked Mr. Heibell to address some of the issues raised in his report of May 10, 2011. One item is the cross-access easement recommended between Hillsborough Radiology and the site, another is a trash disposal area.

Mr. Heibell said Mr. White also had that in his report. In our phone conversation today, I agreed to provide that. You will hear from the witness for Chase Bank but they do not require any dumpster. It is done on a daily basis.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said you will hear testimony that because of security reasons a garbage disposal is cleaned out daily and removed off of the site.

Mr. Ringelheim asked Mr. Heibell to address his comments regarding when the parking area is adjacent to a right-of-way, a 10 ft. landscape buffer shall be provided between the edge of the right-of-way and the parking lot. This is in addition to any required trees, screening and buffering. The area I am looking at is the area along Andrea Avenue between the parking lot and Andrea Avenue. There are some trees there but I am not sure that meets the full intent of the buffering/screening.

Mr. Heibell said we can speak with you further on this. If you feel the buffering needs to be enhanced, the Applicant is certainly willing to do that. Although I said I agreed to everything, Mr. White asked us to add some landscaping around the drive-through lane similar to what you are talking about so we will embellish the landscaping plan as a condition of this approval.

Mr. Ringelheim said I understand you are requesting the Applicant provide a contribution to the tree fund and have the Township plant the trees at some future point.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said there is a two-fold reason for delay of installation of those trees. Chase, at least for a period of time, would like to have the exposure and the visibility of the building. It is a matter of branding as well as their facility, and so forth. They are not opposed to putting these trees in at such time the Township begins to develop that area. We will place money in escrow and if you wish them to plant the trees that would not be a problem. What we are asking for is a deferral of that item.

Mr. Ringelheim said what I would recommend, if the Board would consider it, it to have the funds placed in an escrow for a year from the CO. At that point, the trees would be required to be planted in the next season after that year, unless at that time the Engineer or Planning Office were to further delay that.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said we would like to delay it further than a year. We can discuss that further after Mr. Spevac testifies.

Mr. Heibell added we did submit the application to the D&R Canal Commission and got a report as a semi-reviewed application. However, they wanted an application fee of $1,500 to show that I lessened the impervious, which I sent down but it is there with no staff. I will have that same situation for any application until it is cured but I did abide by their request. We reviewed the application before the Environmental Commission on May 23rd. The Commission basically wants to be brought up to speed once those applications come in. There is an application that is pending at the Somerset Soil Conservation District since we are disturbing over 5,000 sq. ft. We are expecting it but any approval should be subject to that approval. We also received a report dated June 01, 2011 from the Somerset County Planning Board who approves the project. The Applicant has submitted to the NJDOT and is waiting for approval.

Mr. White said as Mr. Heibell said, we have already spoke about many of my comments. The one comment I have is how much disturbance is proposed with this application.

Mr. Heibell said the current Ordinance says we are under the stormwater management if we are over an acre. We are currently at 1 ¼ acres only because we are disturbing the existing parking area to take out the parking and convert it to lawn area.

Mr. White said the problem is the Stormwater Discharge permit requires a specific ordinance. Once they disturb more than 1 acre they are required to reduce the peak flows from the site. Even with decreasing the impervious, the reduction of 4/10 of an acre does not make this site meet those reductions. They are going to have to do some stormwater management on-site before they discharge the DOT. Even if DOT gives them the permit, it does not matter. Our permit hangs in balance with this.

Mr. Heibell said we are going to talk to Mr. White about this. We think we abide by that but are certainly going to discuss it. We are here on a technicality because we are reducing the impervious surface.

Ms. Fenwick asked where the cross-access easement will be.

Mr. Heibell pointed out the area on the display map. It will be an easement approximately 30 ft. long opposite our driveway which is just opposite Hillsborough Radiology’s driveway. It is only an easement about 30 ft. long x 10 ft. because our driveway we are building is 10 ft. from the property line. It will not be on the property of Hillsborough Radiology but will go from our driveway to our common property line. It is a location that if there ever was a need to build and emergency access driveway between the two, it would not impair the parking spaces on either of the two properties.

Ms. Fenwick asked have you given consideration to the emergency access instead of the cross access easement.

Mr. Heibell said this is the one time Mr. Weniger did not suggest is. We have the facility coming off of Andrea which goes almost goes around the entire building. Secondly, you can also go through the parking lot of Hillsborough Radiology all the way back to Hamilton Road at that point.

Vice Chairman Sireci said Mr. Weniger may not have mentioned it because there is already so much access available.

Open to the Public

No comments/questions.

Glen Phillips, P.E., COO of Core States Group was sworn in, provided his qualifications which were accepted by the Board and gave the following testimony:

Exhibit A3-ID – Chase Bank – Building Elevations

Exhibit A4-ID – Drive-Through Elevations

Exhibit A5-ID - Signage

Responding to Mr. Cohen’s questions, Mr. Phillips said Core States has been retained by Chase to design the building and other facilities at this site. Exhibit A3 shows the exterior elevations of the proposed building. The building shown is very similar to the prototypical Chase Bank. The top is the front Route 206 side, the bottom is the front entrance side from the parking lot, as well as the east and west elevations.

This building was designed for this specific site to be up to Route 206. Normally, the way Chase Bank operates is that they would have a single entrance facility where someone would come in from Route 206, park and walk the building which would be towards the rear. We understand the goals and plans of the Master Plan of Hillsborough and worked to design a building accordingly. Because the building is so close to the street, you would not have the drive-up so close to the building. Normally the drive-up is adjacent to the building; here it is quite remote. We were able to achieve that by having a remote canopy with a vacuum tube and ATM. There are two 24-hour ATMs on the site; on is a drive-up the other is accessible to the rear parking lot of the building. A standard Chase building is slightly over 25-26 ft. The highest point here would be 30 ft. The drive-up has 3 lanes; the closest is the teller lane, adjacent to that is the ATM which is accessible 24 hours, and then the bypass lane. The height is approximately 14 ft. with 10ft. 8 in. clearance.

Under the Ordinance we are allowed 325 sq. ft. of signage which is 265 sq. ft. of wall signage on the facade and 60 sq. ft. of monument signage. The wall signage is calculated as 10% of the facade face which is 1,700 sq. ft. The sign that faces Route 206 is just over 46 sq. ft. We need signage on the front and back of the building because it has dual entrances. The Ordinance would allow 1 sign on one of the sides of the building to be 85 sq. ft. The sign on the west side of the building will also be 46.5 sq. ft. They are all 46.5 sq. ft. The Ordinance also permits a sign in the rear of the building to be 10 sq. ft.; we are proposing 46.5 sq. ft. which would require a waiver. We have a dual entrance custom building designed so that is why we have a building sign over each entrance. We are proposing a 46.5 sq. ft. sign on the easterly side of the building. Under the Ordinance no such sign is permitted. We are proposing a total 185.8 sq. ft. of façade signage which is under the allowable by 110 sq. ft. although we vary slightly from the Ordinance.

Mr. Phillips reviewed display map A5. We are allowed a temporary 16 sq. ft. sign. We propose a temporary 32 sq. ft. sign which would be gone when we open. We are allowed 2 monument signs at 30 sq. ft. each. One is towards the entrance on the north side of Route 206; the other is towards the corner of the facility. Each is located just under 10 sq. ft. from the road. There was a comment that they are supposed to be 10 ft. from the right-of-way. We will adjust to comply with that. A comment was made that we should move the monument sign back towards the rear entrance of the facility. We have an interesting group of roads here so it might make sense to split the difference and put the sign between Route 206 and the side entrance, back about 100 ft. from Route 206; that might be a good compromise. We want to have the second sign and like it where it is proposed but would be willing to move it to this area. The 3 signs on the canopy are all informational to keep the traffic flowing. We have one for the drive-up banking, one for the ATM and one for the clearance. We are under the allowable 4 sq. ft. per sign.

The façade signs are internally illuminated, the canopy signs are not. The only illumination on the canopy is the red and green lights to indicate open or closed. Since the ATMs are open 24 hours, the signage as well as the lighting would be on 24 hours at

this site. There is a directional sign at each entrance. In general the hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6

p.m. and Saturday from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Those hours would fluctuate depending on market conditions. There are also

appointments after hours then they would remain open until 7:30 or 8:00 p.m. just for that appointment. Inside the building we have a maximum of 10 to 12 employees; 5 to 6 of them tellers, the remaining management and financial services.

The typical household waste gets cleaned out on a daily basis. Recyclables and refuse is taken out and sorted, removed from the cleaning crew on a daily basis. The other major waste that leaves this building is the financial records. That either gets shredded on-site or is taken off-site and gets shredded a few times a week. This is why we do not need a dumpster on this or any other Chase facility.

Committeeman DelCore asked Mr. Ringelheim to clarify the allowed signage.

Mr. Ringelheim noted the GA District permits wall signs that shall not exceed an area equal to 10% of the façade of the building (height x width of that wall) or 20 sq. ft., whichever is greater. So in the case of the facades, the 10% is greater than the 20 sq. ft. I understand it is very important to the Applicant to put the branding out there. The Board should understand that in addition to the signage provided on the 4 walls there are also logos provided on at least the front and the back of the building and there are the distinctive blue awnings which are also part of the branding. In that respect, the Applicant is getting more than the signage out there in terms of the branding. When they look at the 4th sign which is not permitted and the size of the sign over the parking lot entrance that should be taken into account. As far as the monument sign which is not conforming, the town requires the street address; we allow an additional 3 sq. ft. for that. The monument sign should have landscaping around it.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said they agree to put the address and landscaping.

Mr. Ringelheim continued. There is a DO NOT ENTER sign at the end of the drive-through lane and a RESERVED PARKING for handicap signs proposed to be mounted on 8. 42 ft. high poles. My concern is that is pretty high up for when you are pulling in. I would like to see them lowered somewhat.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said that is not a problem. We agree to that.

Mr. Ringelheim said the temporary construction sign is not only bigger than the 16 sq. ft. allowable but higher than the 6 ft. maximum. We would allow one 16 sq. ft. temporary sign on each frontage.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said we have no problem lowering the temporary sign to a 6 ft. height although we are requesting the 32 sq. ft. size.

Mr. Ringelheim added we do allow one on each frontage so we would allow one 16 sq. ft. on the Route 206 frontage and one on the Andrea Ave. or Hamilton Rd. frontage.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said we are only proposing one so that would be one 32 sq. ft. instead of two. We would certainly keep the temporary sign at least 10 ft. from the setbacks; wherever Mr. Ringelheim would like it placed.

Mr. Phillips reviewed the materials on the building: limestone split face block; above that is a natural red brick; on top is aphis which has some architectural features including the Chase logo which is not backlit; asphalt roof; and the Chase blue aluminum awnings on the front and the rear of the building which have no logos.

Mr. White asked what the bottom elevations are of the façade signs.

Mr. Phillips said they are approximately 14 ft.

Mr. White said 8 to 10 ft. trees would take a few years before they basically block the view of that. This can go into the matter of whether they put the shade trees in or not. I do not think there will be any problem with that being that they are so high to begin with.

Chairman Conard said I thought the shade tree issue was to have uniformity along Route 206.

Mr. Ringelheim said they also want to establish their branding; that is why they have all of the extra signage.

Mr. White said our recommendation for any type of trees when you come in to do the whole corner is not to put down one type of tree. You are creating a monoculture. If you get a type of bug that can take down a certain species, you can lose the whole street. You need to create different types of pods all around.

Mayor McCauley asked if the blue luminescence lighting as represented in the picture presented is part of the lighting package.

Mr. Phillips said it is in the front center tower of the building.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said that building is similar but not exact but the lighting would look exactly like that.

Mayor McCauley said while I can appreciate branding, because everyone that comes before us has a brand they would like to stand out. I do have my concerns with exceeding the number of signs allowed by the Ordinance. I think it is unnecessary and believe other Board members agree but do not know how to address that in terms of what you are willing to give up possibly verses what you genuinely need.

Mr. Phillips said I understand you are sensitive to signage and lighting. We are allowed a lot more signage on this site as proposed. What I was trying to do was make the signs proportionate to the building. Rather than put one big sign out front and one on the side, we are trying to get the minimum amount of branding on each side without it being offensive at all. We have 110 sq. ft. less proposed than what is allowable. I believe I did a pretty good job of evenly distributing the amount of signage.

Vice Chairman Sireci said Mr. Ringelheim already corrected that. Although 10% is allowed, there is a top limit of 20 sq. ft.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said it is whatever is greater so the 110 sq. ft. is allowed.

Mr. Mershon said there are 13 other banks in this town and do not have nearly as much signage. They have brands too.

Mr. Ringelheim said I would like to go back to the monument sign on Andrea. Right now it is proposed near the intersection of Route 206. The Applicant has indicated they would be willing to move it back about 100 ft. My point is moving it near the driveway is much more effective in getting people to turn into your bank at the driveway. By moving it up, people coming down Hamilton, there is a turn in the road to Andrea where people might miss that turn. I strongly recommend the Applicant put it up toward the driveway, otherwise, I think it is too confusing and misses the point.

Mr. Phillips said I agree that what I proposed as a compromise turns out to not be a good idea. I will put it wherever you propose.

Committeeman DelCore asked for clarification on the lighting. The blue lighting is only in the front Route 206 entrance, not in the back. Each of the signs will have their own lighting.

Mr. Phillips said that is correct.

No questions/comments from the Public.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said I indicated I also have Mr. Spevac of Chase here to testify. We have already covered the topics I was going to ask of him. If you have any questions from an operations standpoint, I have no problem presenting him.

Committeeman DelCore asked about the 24 hour services.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said the ATM in the drive-up would be open 24 hours; normal banking hours for inside of the bank.

Committeeman DelCore said I suggest we forego any additional testimony regarding the operations.

Mr. Ringelheim asked for discussion about the parking.

Mr. Phillips said the maximum number of employees would be 12. If we have 12 employee parking spaces and 26 proposed, that leaves the rest for customers. We do not think they will be full all of the time but we want to have adequate parking and believe 26 is the correct number. That is typically what we would propose for a building of that size.

Jay Troutman, P.E. of McDonough & Rea Associates was sworn in and provided the following testimony:

We were asked to do a traffic study for this site. We did a typical Traffic Impact Study, dated May 2, 2011 which was filed with the Board. It looked at establishing existing traffic conditions; projecting additional volume to be generated by the bank; reviewing the internal layout proposed by Van Cleef in terms of the parking lot and driveways; and then analyzing roadway capacity at the intersection and at the driveways. Mr. Heibell allowed me to work with him in designing the driveways. I worked with NJDOT ahead of time to get an idea of what kind of driveway they would want on Route 206.

In accordance with the NJDOT Access Code, their highway access permit system would predict we would generate a total of 58 trips during a weekday afternoon peak hour and 60 weekend trips peak hour. We actually assumed roughly 100 trips during those peak hours to do a conservative analysis.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said there was an existing Charlie Browns Restaurant on that site. Considering the size of that structure and location, how many trips was that generating?

Mr. Troutman said referring to how the NJDOT would permit that structure; they would have 94 trips on a weekday afternoon peak hour compared to the 58 predicted for the bank and 71 on a Saturday, compared to the 60 predicted for the bank.

Statistically, the peak hour volume and intensity of the volume would be reduced in the change of use from a restaurant to a

bank. I believe the bank would have a more spread out trip pattern throughout the day and no trip patterns to speak of on Sunday or after hours on Saturday except for the ATM as compared with a restaurant which would have more intense volumes at lunch and dinner hours seven days a week.

As for the interior traffic flow proposed, we have adequate parking and circulation in all areas in order to accommodate passenger cars and emergency vehicles.

Mr. Mershon said I have concerns with the drive-through. How many cars will you be able to accommodate.

Mr. Troutman said each lane can have the vehicle being services and 3 to 4 vehicles in waiting. The span is about 80 ft. after the vehicle being serviced. If you allow 20 ft. per vehicle you should be able to hold a maximum of 4 to5 vehicles in each lane.

Mr. Mershon said with the ATM lane, you can have a maximum of 4 to 5 vehicles before you start to block the parking lot. Then you have a chance to have cars backing up onto Andrea or going into the parking lot. I am thinking about all 13 banks and cannot think of any that is that small and permits cars to back out onto a main road.

Mr. Troutman said I do not believe this drawing represents that. You have almost 160 ft. before you back to Andrea Ave. I am just addressing the possibility of anything every effecting Andrea.

Mr. Mershon said Bank of America just put in a second ATM because there are times when there is a 6 to 8 car back-up and they have a much larger entrance way and can handle many more cars. You can handle 4 to 5 cars in the drive-through lane. You are not going to want to block the parking lot and if honking starts that is going to annoy the houses in the area, or they might just choose to back out onto Andrea.

My observations of Chase Bank in their drive-up/teller activity, especially with the proliferation of on-line banking and the distribution of trips is that they do not get a queue that would exceed that number and create that situation. The stacking would begin to spill back towards the driveway but you would still have the option of the bypass lane to get into the parking lot.

Mr. Mershon said another concern is the severe 45 degree egress you are proposing. Should a car choose to come around the side and you have a car pulling out of the service area, to me that is an extremely dangerous and an accident area.

Mr. Troutman said I reviewed that design and participated in designs very similar to this. I have not observed any accident potential with this type of design. The vehicles are released in a controlled manner and have adequate visibility to maneuver through that area. Chase Bank is very different from the bank you are comparing, Bank of America. They are two very different animals in the market place. If someone sees a long line at the ATM they can certainly use the ATM in the lobby where there is plenty of parking and access. There are differences in the variety of banks depending on how they market their accounts.

Committeeman DelCore said I think we are getting into an area you may not be able to testify to. Maybe it is best to have the bank operations witness address this.

Mr. Troutman said based on traffic observations I am qualified. The brands do differ when you go out and count them. Bank of America operates a lot differently than Chase based on my counts and observations of the two brands.

Mr. Mershon said across the street at TD Bank there are at least 30. Bank of America has 30 and frequently has cars lined up in the Bottle King parking lot. You propose 26 for which 12 will be taken up by employees. I do not think there is adequate parking by any means.

Mr. Troutman said I find to the contrary. There is more than adequate parking at this site. I have never observed a parking lot of this size to be overwhelmed.

Mr. Cohen (Board member) asked are you willing to put it in writing that there will never be a time when there is not more than 6 cars and when there is not someone on Andrea Avenue waiting to make a left turn into this parking lot and holding up traffic to get in there.

Mr. Troutman said I do not anticipate that type of queuing at this facility.

Mayor McCauley said I agree with the traffic engineer, myself included, that when there are cars waiting in the drive-up I go inside.

Mr. Mershon said you will only have 14 parking spaces in which to do that or else you will be parking in the Hillsborough Radiology parking lot and walking across.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said we obviously have plenty of space in which we can put additional parking. It is not like we ran out of space and are trying to cram parking in. Chase is the entity which would be most interested in making sure there is adequate

parking is. Chase chose the 26 parking spaces based on its experience. They do not think they needed more parking and only

12 spaces were required. We wanted to keep more green space.

Mr. Burchette said I would like to go back to Mr. Mershon’s comment about the cars pulling out of the drive-through. He has a valid point. You are going to have to put bollards up by requirement which will force the cars to go straight before turning left. So if the car is about the same size as the drive-through space, that will put the car on the right side all the way up against the curb prior to making its turn to the left. My suggestion is to move it back to allow for the turn. The turn is even worse if you have a regular pick-up or extended cab.

Mr. White said at the drive-up there is 40 ft. past the machine itself before you reach the curb which is more than adequate for a passenger vehicle to turn. You are not going to go straight for 25 ft.; you are going to start negotiating the turn before that. The concrete islands are going to demarcate where you can and cannot go. It should not be an issue in the ATM lane either.

Mr. Mershon asked if you are in the left lane, aren’t you blocked by the right service lane.

Mr. White said the bypass lane will have to slow down to negotiate the turn which is better than being on the straight away.

Mr. Stafford-Taylor asked if it stays three lanes when exiting or merges into one.

Mr. White said they merge into one. The one-way access aisle is 24 ft. wide which is the same width as a two-lane access. They are not all merging into a 12 ft. lane. There is a possibility of a conflict, mostly with the ATM and bypass lanes. I would rather have the bypass lane then not have the bypass lane because of how these things stack up.

A few suggestions were offered by the Board members.

Chairman Conard asked the Applicant and professionals to discuss options during the break.

Break

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said hearing the comments from the Board and professionals, Chase would remove one side sign on the side of the building leaving all signs conforming with the exception of the rear sign which would be 46.5 sq. ft. instead of 10 sq. ft., now 150 sq. ft. less than we are permitted under the 265 sq. ft. of your Ordinance.

Mr. Bernstein clarified the signs will be on the Route 206 side, the parking lot side and the Andrea Avenue side.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. agreed. The freestanding sign will be moved back to the entrance driveway onto Andrea Avenue at the suggestion of Mr. Ringelheim. At the suggestion of Mr. White, we will post the escrow for the tree planting and that the tree planting be done approximately one year, unless the Township has an issue. We will plant the trees and when completed the escrow would be released.

Mr. White clarified he did not mention posting an escrow. That was the suggestion of Mr. Ringelheim.

Robert Heibell, PE & LS was called back to testify about the issues with the remote drive-through.

Mr. Heibell said we will take the remote drive-up and rotate it 90 degrees counter clockwise so that any vehicles existing would be going straight towards Route 206. There would be no sharp turns. We will take the drive-through lane and swing it into the east through some of the green area and swing it in so that it creates an appropriate lane. We may very well pick up another stacking lane when we do that. I will have to do the exact geometry to do it. It certainly will not be less, it would be greater.

Mr. Cohen (Board member) asked if any of the parking spaces will be taken out on the corner because of it.

Mr. Heibell said I will try not to but there is one parking space when you exit. I will work that in and bring back the parking space somehow. Mr. Heibell showed how the change would work on the display exhibit. I will swing the drive-up counterclockwise in approximately that location but I am also going to swing the driveway into the green space which will lengthen the stacking. The exit will then be straight; there will not be a sharp left-hand exit. There will still be a bypass lane.

Mr. Bernstein said the testimony provided stated the Route 206 driveway will be a right-in/right-out only driveway. What signage and/or situation are you presenting to prevent the left-in on Route 206 South and the people who will try to make the left out of that driveway going south?

Mr. Heibell said there is an island in the middle which the fire company has asked for. We are going to go back to NJDOT for a mountable curb rather then a vertical curb. Since there is a traffic signal there, I cannot believe someone would look to make a left out of there. The question came about make the left in. Jay Troutman and I agree that on other applications NJDOT has required us to put a sign on the opposite side of Route 206 directing you into the jughandle if you want to go to Chase.

Ms. Fenwick said it is up to the driver. You can put up all the signs in the world but people are still going to do it.

Mr. Heibell said I agree. We are going to abide by Chris Weniger’s request and put mountable curb in but less people will try to

make that curb if you have vertical curb which we had proposed. The mountable curb will allow the rear tires to go over the concrete.

Mr. Mershon said I believe a lot more people will try to make a left into the Hillsborough Radiology’s parking lot which has a wide opening, go out through the back and come around instead of having to maneuver the jughandle and wait for the light. What about a sign to indicate HILLSBOROUGH RADIOLOGY ONLY or something of that nature.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said I am presuming that may already occur. Perhaps a request should be made of the Fire Department to erect such a sign.

Ms. Fenwick said people drive through the Fire Department parking lot all of the time.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said to the extent they are violating that, I do not think the bank is going to create any significant increase.

Mr. Bernstein said obviously we cannot continue to move everyone up. The question was what is DOT requiring and what are you proposing relative to those issues.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. said the only other is that I can produce Mr. Spevac to testify on how the number of parking spaces was determined.

Mr. Bernstein said the Board has a time issue. Based on Mr. Heibell’s suggestion, vis-à-vis, the Board’s concerns, we are going to see a new set of plans which means Mr. Cohen, Esq. and his client are going to be back before this Board. Hearing from Mr. Spevac now or when they come back is not an issue.

Chairman Conard said being that it is 10:10 p.m., I would suggest we carry this application.

Mr. Cohen, Esq. asked if it is possible to get an approval tonight with the two changes subject to the engineer’s approval.

Mr. Cohen (Board member) said we cannot vote on a site plan without seeing it drawn.

Mr. Ringelheim said the next available meeting will be July 7th.

A motion to carry the application without further notice was made by Mr. Cohen (Board member).

Mr. Cohen, Esq. asked if a draft resolution could be prepared because we do have some time constraints, provided you approve of the amended plan.

Mr. Bernstein said as long as I have been the Planning Board attorney, we do not draft the resolution until the stenographer prepares and give us the transcript and we review it so we make sure the resolution is in conformance with the transcript. Until the transcript is done, you will not see the final resolution.

A second of the motion was made by Vice Chairman Sireci. All in favor – Aye.

Mayor McCauley said I do want to say thank you for working out some of the issues right here and also taking the Master Plan into consideration.

CORRESPONSENCE

None

Chairman Conard said we have no business on the meeting of June 9th or the business meeting of June 23rd. A motion and second to cancel the meetings was made. All in favor – Aye.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 10:11 p.m.

Submitted by:

Debora Padgett

Planning Board Clerk sq. ft where sq. ft is allowed

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download