www.briellenj.com
A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ


JUNE 10, 2008

August 28 2008

JUNE 10, 2008

The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 7:30 pm in the Brielle Borough Hall, 601 Union Lane. After a moment of silent prayer and a salute to the flag, roll call was taken:

Present Susan S. Brady, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James
Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, John Visceglia,
Terre Vitale

Absent Mayor Thomas B. Nicol, Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo (Note: The Recording Secretary told the audience that the Mayor and Councilman were not present tonight due to the nature of the main hearing they are not eligible to hear a Use Variance application)

Also present were Ken Fitzsimmons, Board Attorney, Alan Hilla, Jr. of Birdsall Engineering and Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary. There were approximately 50 people in the audience.

Chairperson Brady then called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. She announced that, in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this Body’s meeting had been sent to the official newspapers of the Board fixing the time and place of all hearings.

The Minutes of the May 13, 2008 meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Sigler, all aye, no nays.

CORRESPONDENCE:

The May/June issue of the New Jersey Planner was received, as well as a copy of a Resolution from Wall Township objecting to the Cellular Monopole application being heard by the Brielle Planning Bo0ard.

On file in the Planning Board Office: publication “Monmouth County Farmland Preservation Plan” (draft) from the Monmouth County Planning Board.

OLD BUSINESS:

The Board considered the approval of a Resolution for a variance for Block 51, Lot 6, 407 Leslie Avenue, owned by James & Janine Leonhardt. As there were no recommendations or changes to the draft Resolution, the following was presented for approval:

“WHEREAS, James & Janine Leonhardt (the “Applicants”), having a mailing address of 407 Leslie Avenue, Brielle, N.J. 08730, have applied to the Brielle Planning Board (the “Board”) for bulk variances pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c); and

WHEREAS, proof of service as required by law upon appropriate property owners and governmental bodies has been furnished and determined to be in proper order; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 13, 2008 in the Borough Hall, at which time testimony and exhibits were presented on behalf of the applicant and all interested parties having been heard; and

WHEREAS, the Board makes the following factual findings and findings of law:

1. This property is designated as Block 51, Lot 6 on the municipal tax map.
2. The property is located in the R-4 zone.
3. Applicants propose to construct an addition at the rear of an existing single-family residential dwelling, construct a raised patio at the rear of the proposed addition, remove an existing detached garage and various paved surfaces, and construct a 200 square foot storage shed.
4. The following variances had been applied for:

ITEM REQUIRED PROVIDED

Front Yard Setback 25 feet 21.1 feet
(existing condition)

Side Yard Setback 8 feet 5.5 feet north side
(existing home)

Side Yard Setback 8 feet 5.5 feet north side
(proposed addition)

Lot Coverage 20% maximum 25.1%

Minimum Setback of
Driveway from adjacent
Property lines 5 feet 2.5 feet

5. Zoning Officer Alan P. Hilla, Jr. prepared a report to the applicant dated April 3, 2008. The Board adopts the findings in that report and incorporates that document in this Resolution by reference.

6. Applicants submitted a copy of a survey prepared by Horn, Tyson & Yoder, Inc. dated April 11, 1994. This survey shows existing conditions on the site. Applicants also provided a second survey showing the location of the proposed first floor addition, deck, stairs and 10’x20’ storage shed. This survey indicates that the bituminous concrete driveway and concrete pad abutting that driveway behind the existing dwelling will be removed. The proposed 10’x20’ shed is shown at the northwest corner of the property. The existing garage is noted as being removed from the site.

7. Mr. Leonhardt testified that this house was built in the early 1940s. He stated that he and his wife wish to provide an additional living space by adding an eat-in kitchen and other facilities. The witness stated that the exiting two-car garage will be removed and is to be replaced by a storage shed. This was proposed in order to lessen the amount of building coverage on the property. The witness stated that variances relating to the front yard setback and the side yard setback of the dwelling are existing conditions.

The witness also stated that the driveway serving the house, which intrudes into the required 5-foot setback area, is an existing condition.

8. During the presentation of this case, several Board members commented that lot coverage would be significantly higher than the 20% permitted lot coverage. Questions were also raised concerning the height of the proposed storage shed, which essentially has dimensions equal to a one-car garage. Applicant agreed to reduce the shed for a dimension of 10’x12’ and greed that its height would not exceed 12 feet. This amendment to the application reduces lot coverage by 80 square feet, and lessens the lot coverage to approximately 23.6%, which is the existing amount of coverage. Applicants also agreed to make application to the Governing Body to permit the encroachment of an existing brick walk and retaining wall into the right-of-way area of Leslie Avenue.

9. Mary Leahy-Bennett, a neighbor of the applicants, testified that she supported the proposed addition because it would aesthetically improve the property.

10. The Board finds and determines that:

(a) The variance relating to the encroachment into the required front yard is an existing condition, which is not impacted by the proposed addition.
(b) The encroachment into the northerly side yard is an existing condition for the current structure on the property. The continuance of this encroachment by the first floor addition will have a minimal impact upon neighboring properties.
(c) The proposed improvements will aesthetically upgrade the site and will have a positive impact upon neighboring properties.
(d) Based upon the modifications to the plan, lot coverage is maintained by approximately 23.6% which is equivalent to the existing lot coverage.
(e) The proposed addition provides a desirable visual environment and maintains adequate light, air and open space to this site and adjacent properties.
(f) The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan of the municipality.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brielle Planning Board on this 10th day of June, 2008, that the decision of the Board at its meeting of May 13, 2008 be memorialized and that this application be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. Applicant shall apply for and receive approvals from all other municipal, county, state and federal agencies having regulatory jurisdiction over this development application.

2. Applicant shall pay all real property taxes through and including the calendar quarter of the date of this Resolution.

3. Applicant shall file all required performance bonds, maintenance guarantees and post all applicable engineering and inspection fees.

4. The maximum size of the proposed storage shed shall be 10’x12’ and the maximum height of the shed shall be 12 feet.

5. Applicant shall apply and receive approval from the Governing Body to permit the encroachment of the brick walk and retaining wall into the right-of-way of Leslie Avenue.

6. This development approval shall be null and void unless applicants commence construction of the proposed improvements within three years of the date of this Resolution.

7. Certified copies of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the applicant, Borough Construction Official, Zoning Officer and all other parties in interest.”

A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Sigler, seconded by Mrs. Vitale and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Susan S. Brady, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger,
Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, John Visceglia, Terre Vitale

Noes: None

The Board then turned to an amended Resolution for Variance Relief for Block 75.01, Lot 8, 812 Ashley Avenue, owned by George & Ruth Harms.

As all members, as well as the applicant, had received a draft copy of this amended Resolution and there were no recommendations or changes, the following was presented for approval:

“WHEREAS, George & Ruth Harms (the “applicants”), having a mailing address of 814 Linden Lane, Brielle, N.J. 08730, have applied to the Brielle Planning Board (the “Board”) for a variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-36; and

WHEREAS, proof of service as required by law upon appropriate property owners and governmental bodies has been furnished and determined to be in proper order; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on April 8, 2008 in the Borough Hall, at which time testimony and exhibits were presented on behalf of the applicants and all interested parties having been heard; and

WHEREAS, the Board makes the following factual findings and findings of law:

1. This property is designated as Block 75.01, Lot 8 on the municipal tax map.

2. The property is located in the R-2 zone.

3. Zoning Officer Alan P. Hilla, Jr. prepared a report to the applicant dated October 26, 2007. The Board adopts the findings in that report and incorporates that document in this Resolution by reference.

4. The following exhibits were marked into evidence:

A-1. ..Subdivision map prepared by Wilson M. Hopkins, L.S., dated
November 16, 1956. The subdivision map was signed by the Mayor and Municipal Clerk on July 22, 1957.
A-2…Deed dated August 19, 1957 from Richard A. and Dorothy H.
Potter to Ernest P. and Sara E. Reid conveying the subject
property.

5. A variance has been applied for pursuant to Section 21-9.3 of the municipal code which required a lot to front on a public street.

6. Zoning Officer Alan P. Hilla, Jr. prepared a report to the applicants dated October 26, 2007. The Board adopts the findings in that report and incorporates that document in this Resolution by reference.


7. Brielle Fire Company No. 1, Inc. prepared a report to the Board dated April 7, 2008. The Board adopts the findings in that report and incorporates that document in this Resolution by reference.

8. Sergeant Grant Kitchenman of the Brielle Police Department prepared a report to the Board dated April 4, 2008. The Board adopts the findings in that report and incorporates that document in this Resolution by reference.

9. This lot gains access to Ashley Avenue by a 16-foot easement from that street to the rear of the lot. The easement was established by deed (A-2) in 1957.

10. Applicants have been denied a permit to demolish the existing principal structure on the lot and construct a new principal structure. The denial is based on the fact that the property does not abut a public street. Applicants have appealed the decision of the Zoning Officer under the provisions of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-36.

11. No objectors appeared in opposition to this development application.

12. The Board finds and determines that:

a) This subdivision was approved by the municipality on July 22, 957. See Exhibit A-1.
b) A 16-foot easement between the property and Ashley Avenue was created in 1957. See Exhibit A-2.
c) For a period in excess of 40 years, a single-family residential dwelling has existing on the site. Although not fronting on a public street, the property has functioned by means of the 16- foot easement from the rear of the property to Ashley Avenue.
d) The report of Brielle Fire Company No. 1 confirms that an emergency firefighting apparatus can access the site. The report of the Fire Company concludes that a home built in accordance with current construction codes will improve fire safety conditions as contrasted to the existing “balloon-type” construction, which allows for rapid vertical spread of fire from the lower to the upper floors in voids, between the outer and inner walls.
e) The existing structure violates height limitations. The proposed new structure will comply with all bulk requirements in this zone.
f) The granting of this application will eliminate the existing nonconforming condition relating to the height of the residential dwelling.
g) The proposed improvements will aesthetically upgrade the site.
h) The proposed improvements will have a positive impact upon this site and neighboring properties.
i) The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan of the municipality.

NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brielle Planning Board on this 10th
Day of June, 2008, that the decision of the Board at its meeting of April 8, 2008 be memorialized, and that this application be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. Applicants shall apply for and receive approvals from all other municipal, county, state and federal agencies having regulatory jurisdiction over this development application.

2. Applicants shall pay all real property taxes through and including the calendar quarter of the date of this Resolution.

3. Applicants shall file all required performance bonds, maintenance guarantees and post all applicable engineering and inspection fees.

4. Improvements, including curbing installed on Ashley Avenue, shall be realigned at the applicants’ expense as required by the Board Engineer.

5. This development approval shall be null and void unless applicants commence construction of the proposed improvements within three years of the date of this Resolution.

6. Certified copies of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the applicants, Borough Construction Official, Zoning Officer and all other parties in interest.”

A motion to approve the above amended Resolution was made by Mrs. Vitale,
seconded by Mr. Sigler and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger,
Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, John Visceglia, Terre Vitale

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: Susan S. Brady

NEW BUSINESS:

The Board then turned to the application for variance relief for Block 60, Lot 8, 310 Green Avenue, owned by Twenty-Three Crescent, LLC, to allow construction of a new single-family home and detached garage. Minimum Lot Size 11,250 square feet required, 4,718 square feet existing. Minimum Lot Width 75 feet required, 65.80 feet existing. Minimum Lot Depth 125 feet required, 68.42 feet existing. Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 feet required, 24.23 feet proposed. Minimum Rear Yard Setback (principal) 35 feet required, 16.79 feet proposed. Lot Coverage 20% Maximum allowed, 24.1% proposed. Minimum Side Yard (accessory) - 5 feet required, 2.06 existing and proposed. Driveway Curb Cuts 5 feet from adjacent line required. Existing driveway (to remain) is located 3 feet from the adjacent property.

The fee of $800 was paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners as well as the newspaper were properly notified. Christopher Rice, Architect and Steven Hegna, the homeowner, came forward and were sworn in. Mr. Hegna gave his address as 4 Crescent Drive, Brielle and told the Board he has owned this property on Green Avenue for 7 years - the house had been a rental property and is in disrepair. He would like to build a single family home for his mother to live in by herself. At this point Mr. Heavey asked if there are other members of the LLC that own this property and Mr. Hegna said no, he is the sole owner.

At this time Christopher Rice came forward and was accepted as an expert witness. He had drawings mounted on a board which were marked as Exhibit A-1, A-2 & A-3 by Mr. Fitzsimmons. Mr. Rice said the lot requirement is 11,250 square feet and this is less than ½ of that, this was not created by Mr. Hegna and was an existing lot with homes on either side; the existing home is in violation of front and rear setbacks as the lot is only 65x68’ and they lack depth. The home to be created is for one person and will be a 1 ½ story bungalow, he did his best to put the new home where the existing one is as it has been that way for so long. Instead of a long, thin house there will be a half-story to balance the home out. He tried to reduce the variance at the rear and stated that house will be 900 square feet on the first floor and 700 square feet on the second floor; the home will be 30 feet high where 35 feet is allowed.

He went on to state the existing garage is not good and they would like to put on an attached garage but they can’t with the small lot size, so they decided to keep the new garage in the same location as the existing one but will need a variance to do so. They will be at 24.1% lot coverage, the house will be 20% and the rest will be the garage. Mr. Rice also considered a carport but that, too, would be included in lot coverage; he said the garage will be small, 10.5 by 18.4 feet. Mr. Visceglia asked why the garage can’t be brought into compliance and Mr. Rice said they can bring it in to 5 feet side yard setback.

Mr. Langenberger noted if they remove the garage they will be at the 20% requirement and they are starting from scratch; he liked the home but not the garage. Mr. Rice said they have less than half of a normal lot which makes a difference. Mr. Langenberger asked Mr. Hegna if he also owned 23 Crescent Drive and the answer was yes. Mr. Langenberger then commented that Mr. Hegna also owns the lot next door to this one and Mr. Rice said yes, but to take any of that land would result in a non-conforming lot there. Mr. Langenberger asked if the proposed home is to be raised and Mr. Rice said it will be built on a crawl space and will be raised up.

Mr. Sigler agreed with losing the garage, 25% over in coverage is too much. Mrs. Brady said she had no problem with this application after seeing the property and its size. Mr. Rice said they can remove the garage as per Mr. Visceglia’s suggestion; they would have like to have it attached or a carport but felt there is a hardship here. He also commented that a detached garage will not make the home look too large, this is
1½ story home and he did not think the 4% overage will be noticed; he also said the garage will be less than 16 feet high. Mr. Heavey asked if the property at 312 Green has a garage and Mr. Hegna said no. Mr. Heavey then asked about the necessity of having a garage and Mr. Rice said for Mr. Hegna’s needs and his mother’s needs, again referencing a hardship. Mr. Sigler commented that Mr. Hegna knew it was an undersized lot when he purchased it and did not see the “hardship”. Mr. Rice said the home is very small and they have tried to keep it as small as possible.

The Engineer had nothing to add to his report on this application, so Mrs. Brady opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Jeff DeMuro of 13 Crescent Drive came forward and was sworn in, he lives behind the subject home on Green Avenue. He said they would like to see the garage stay where it is or there will be 3 garages in the same place.

As there were no other public comments or questions, that portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Rice did not have any more testimony to give so the Board went into discussion. Mrs. Brady felt the consensus of the Board seems to be that the garage is a problem. Mr. Visceglia said this is an undersized lot, he liked the fact that they have not maxed out the house and gave a good roof line; someone could come in and put up a 35 foot home, but he had the thought of making the garage smaller. Mr. Rice said they can make the 5 foot side yard setback and Mr. Sigler said he would like to see those 2 variances eliminated. Mr. Rice then agreed to make the garage smaller so they can meet the 5 foot side yard setback. The garage is 18.5 feet long and 16 feet high. The Board agreed that if the two variances for the garage were removed the application would be acceptable.

As there were no further comments, a motion to approve the application, as amended by the garage changes, was made by Mr. Heavey, seconded by Mrs. Vitale and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Susan S. Brady, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger,
Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, John Visceglia, Terre Vitale

Noes: None

The Board then turned to the continuation of an application for a Minor Site Plan/Use Variance for Block 110, Lot 2, known as 1023 Highway 70, owned by Alpha Property Management, LLC (Applicant Omnipoint Communications, Inc.) to allow the construction of a 100 foot telecommunications Monopole, disguised as a flagpole, and ground level equipment on a 4’x20’ concrete pad, all to be located at the southwestern corner of the property. Before starting this hearing, Mr. Heavey recused himself from the dais and sitting for this application.

Mr. Warren Stillwell, Esq. came before the Board on behalf of the applicant, Omnipoint Communications. He said they expected to have the radio frequency engineer here this evening, but he was unable to attend so the engineer for this application will be giving testimony. Mr. John Colagrande then came forward and was sworn in, he is a Licensed Professional Engineer in New Jersey and holds a Masters Degree from Stevens Institute, he has worked with site plans for about 15 years and has been before other Boards in New Jersey the Board accepted him as an expert witness.

Mr. Colagrande put up a set of plans the same as the Board had, revised plans which were marked as Exhibit A-2. Before proceeding, Mr. Langenberger asked why a different attorney and Mr. Stillwell said that Mr. Learn was in Deptford presenting another application this evening and he was covering for him. Mr. Colagrande went back to Exhibit A-2 and referenced drawing SP1, sheet 2 of 6 dated 5/14/08, the site plan. This provides the overall site plan of the building and parking, it shows the location of the Omnipoint facility and also the bulk requirements. Because the lot fronts on three streets they have to address compliance. Mr. Fitzsimmons marked as Exhibit A-3 sheet 3 of 6, revision #5 of 5/18/06, antenna orientation and provision of detail of the facility. Mr. Colagrande said there will be one facility and one monopole. This will take up a parking island and one parking space as well as part of the sidewalk. They also need to expand the curbline and they will plant landscaping so the equipment will not be seen.

The only utilities will be electric and phone; this site will be visited once every 4-6 weeks for technical work for about one hour and will not be intrusive. The proposed pole will house 2 groups of antennas at 90 and 98 feet; they will not be visible to the public there will be a 15x25 foot flag flying at 75 feet with floodlights to light the flag at night.

There is one primary set of codes for this E1A-TIA-222 code which governs the design of these. Also, the International Building Code must be complied with and New Jersey has its own. The foundation for a site like this would be installed with a caisson foundation; they have to establish the existing soil and then dig approximately 35-40 feet depending on the soil. The flag ropes and cables will be strapped and the lighting is needed at night if flying an American flag (it is not needed for a New Jersey flag).

He then went on to say there will be 3 equipment cabinets, 2x4x5’ which contain radios, rectifiers, etc. to help the system. These will emit a little but of noise but it will not be a problem for anyone nearby. These cabinets will be air conditioned and all will comply with the noise Ordinance. Mr. Colagrande then said he has seen Mr. Hilla’s latest report of June 9 and Mr. Stillwell spoke and said a lot of items will be addressed by the Radio Frequency Engineer. He then asked Mr. Colagrande to speak on the variances needed they will need a height variance but will comply with setback requirements but noted the existing Alpha/Omega building does not comply and now one more space will be lost, however, they feel there is enough parking even with losing 4 spaces shown on the original plans (this has been reduced to one space lost).

Mr. Langenberger said he noticed there is a place for a third set of antennas at 80 feet and wanted to know if this space is farmed out to another company will another pad be needed; Mr. Colagrande answered yes and they will have to come back before this Board. He also commented that the pole is 4 feet at the base and narrows to two feet at the top. Mr. Langenberger said there was a balloon flying today there and was that at 100 feet? Mr. Stillwell did not know about this and said this was not done by the applicant. Mr. Langenberger then asked where the nearest pole of this type is and Mr. Colagrande did not know, but Mr. Stillwell said he can provide that information for the next meeting and he was not aware if there are any around here there are some down in Atlantic County; Mrs. Brady knew of one out by Kelle Chevrolet in Farmingdale. Mr. Langenberger asked if this is going to benefit Brielle, Wall & Brick and Mr. Stillwell said that will be answered by the radio frequency engineer. Going back to poles of this type in this area, Mr. Langenberger said the pole at Global Flags on Route 34 is 80 feet high and Mr. Colagrande said there is one in New Brunswick with a flag on it. Mr. Stillwell said there is one on Route 9 in Atlantic County that is about 120 feet.

Mr. Visceglia asked for an exhibit on what this will look like and Mr. Stillwell said this will be addressed by the Planner’s testimony. Mr. Visceglia said a 15x25 foot flag usually comes with a pole but it can be smaller he asked about what would happen in a hurricane? Mr. Colagrande said this is considered in the analysis and the pole is designed around this, however, he had no knowledge on the flag. On this Mr. Langenberger thought that Alpha/Omega could take the flag down and put up a banner and he was concerned on this Mr. Stillwell said they will be happy to make a condition that this not be done.

Mr. Fitzsimmons commented on Mr. Hilla’s report, section 3, page 2 regarding the parking. There is now nonconforming parking on the north side and wanted to know if this will be addressed. Mr. Colagrande said no as it is an existing condition put in place by this Board. Mr. Stillwell said this was referred to in a Board Resolution of 3/13/2007 and told the Board the parking plan there now is different than what was approved by the Board. Mr. Fitzsimmons said there have been a series of events regarding the conditions on this site and Mr. Hilla said they examined the problems with this building. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that now some of the parking is on Borough property, however, Mr. Colagrande said they are only addressing their pole.

Mr. Stillwell asked Mr. Fitzsimmons if the Board considers that as part of their condition and Mr. Fitzsimmons said Omnipoint is asking for bulk variances and he thought the entire site has to be addressed. Mrs. Brady said the Board spent a lot of time reconfiguring the parking for dropping off for the dance studio located inside the existing building. Mr. Fitzsimmons had concerns as to whether the Board can allow spaces to encroach into the Borough right-of-way and someone will have to speak on that. Mr. Stillwell agreed that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to allow an encroachment, however, this property had a problem due to the expansion of Route 70 and the site plan approved in 2007 showed parking abutting the building. Mr. Colagrande said the difference between the approved plan and what is there is a 4 foot wide walkway that is now there and was not on the plan, this causes the spaces to cross the Borough line. He said if the spaces were to be abutting the building there would be no encroachment; there are 3 ways to enter this property, 1) off Route 70, 2) off Old Bridge Road by Fox Lane, or 3) parallel off Ramshorn Drive. You can come in that way and go out on Old Bridge Road or Route 70. He did not see any detriment to this drive aisle, they are only losing one parking space. Omnipoint kept their fence back and there will be shrubbery of about 3 feet high.

Mr. Stillwell said the 2007 Resolution required signage and this is all done and is shown on their exhibit; there are signs on each of the back doors with the dance studio sign saying their door is alarmed. Mr. Colagrande then referenced a letter of Jan 24, 2008 which was sent to the Zoning Officer, not the Board, back when this application was being determined and the number of parking spaces is referenced in that document by Mr. Hilla. Mr. Fitzsimmons marked this as Exhibit A-4.

Mr. Hilla asked if there was going to be a walk from south to north and Mr. Colagrande said no, one would have to cross over the parking spaces, the walkway will terminate in a travel aisle. Mrs. Brady said this has been an issue in the past and Mr. Hilla asked if there was any consideration of reconfiguring to allow a walkway and will there be enough room for another carrier can there be provided space for a co-location even though there is none expected. Mr. Colagrande said if they eliminate 3 more parking spaces they can keep a walkway; they can trim down the corner as shown on drawing SP2 which shows the sidewalk that ends they can tighten up the corner and provide a walkway but again said they will lose 3 spaces to install a sidewalk. Mr. Hilla said they were concerned with pedestrian circulation.

Mr. Hilla then asked about an auxiliary power generator and Mr. Colagrande said they do not provide a generator but there may be one, if needed, there is a 6 hour battery back-up. Mr. Hilla asked that detail to be shown in future submissions. Mrs. Brady asked who will maintain the landscaping and Mr. Colagrande said the owner of the property, however, the flag will be maintained by Omnipoint.

At this time the meeting was opened to the public for questions only to Mr. Colagrande and Dan Jobeck of Wall Township came forward. He asked if this pole was designed according to wind speeds and the answer was 100 to 110 mph. Mr. Stillwell noted that they do not have a specific design and Omnipoint will purchase the pole if the application is approved. Mr. Jobeck asked about an FCC condition that says there should be an 8 hour back up system and Mr. Stillwell said this is not currently in effect it has been challenged, the equipment at this site will have a 6 hour back up. Mr. Jobeck then asked about the third set of antennas and if they, too, will be hidden and Mr. Colagrande said yes. Mr. Jobeck asked for confirmation on the heights of the antennas as 98 feet, 90 feet and possibly 80 feet and Mr. Colagrande said that is not in his expertise, he has been told what height they will be. Mr. Jobeck asked if this pole can be made higher and Mr. Colagrande said no, the top section of the pole is not made to take another extension; there is a 120 foot pole but this one is not like that, it’s not in their plans.

Next to come forward was Michael Elward of the Wall Township Attorney’s office and asked if Wall Township was in the proximity here; the answer was yes, the centerline of Old Bridge Road is Brielle’s boundary which is about 110 feet from the proposed site. He then asked if this pole will be visible to residences on the Wall site and Mr. Colagrande said there is nothing between the pole and the homes that will block the view. Mr. Elward asked if the pole will be taller than the homes and the answer was yes. He then asked what conclusion was reached on the parking; Mr. Colagrande said they used the Ordinance to calculate the spaces, 64 are needed and they have 78 so they have enough. Mr. Elward then asked about information on other poles and Mr. Colagrande cited poles in Rutherford and New Milford; he said he could get the information on these applications, New Milford is going before that Board next week and Rutherford was for antennas on a rooftop. Mr. Elward asked about testimony on the variances and Mr. Colagrande said his testimony was on site plan issues only. Mr. Elward then asked about the bulk variances and Mr. Colagrande said the building does not comply, their application does other than the height variance. Mr. Stillwell said there are existing nonconformities and Mr. Colagrande said these issues will be addressed by the Planner.

There was then a question on codes and design for the flag and structure, the sail area of the flag will be handled by company who makes the pole. The monopole has not been designed yet but it has been done before; the design engineer handles this and comes up with a final structure which takes into consideration the sail area for the flag, etc.

Russ Hedden of 1023 Cedar Lane, Brielle, then came forward and asked if the pole has the capacity to take external antennas; Mr. Colagrande said not on this type of pole, it is a specific type of structure. He then asked if antennas can be put lower and Mr. Colagrande said the bottom part of the pole is steel and, while it could be done, it would have to be approved by this Board.

Michael Carroll of Wall Township came forward and asked about the word “compound” that was used in describing this site; Mr. Colagrande said it will be a 550 square foot enclosure with cabinets along with equipment and the pole and it will be a board-on-board enclosure. The pad is only about 550 square feet and there will be no barbed wire. Mr. Carroll asked about security and Mr. Colagrande said the outdoor cabinets will have 2 keys needed to open them; also, if anyone did try a signal is sent to the main office and police will be dispatched to the site. They can propose a chain link fence but then the cabinets will be visible; there are no climbing rungs on the pole and the cabinets are outdoors he did not see a security problem. Mr. Carroll asked if this pole could be put on top of the existing building and Mr. Colagrande said they did look at this option but found the building is not built to take a structure such as this. Mr. Carroll asked if they looked at the property next door and Mr. Colagrande did not know. Mr. Carroll then asked about the drilling down 35 feet and the concern about hitting an aquifer. Mr. Colagrande said they have not had a problem like this as yet, but if there is a problem they can modify the plans to accommodate the building. Mr. Carroll asked what the structure will be made of and was told to the antennas it will be steel, then fiberglass.

Mr. Fitzsimmons referred to Exhibit A-4 on the parking and asked if they examined the Land Use Ordinance for the size of the parking space; Mr. Colagrande did not remember. He also did not do a calculation as to whether or not the parking spaces are conforming. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if he could do this and Mr. Colagrande asked if he should include the spaces along the property line. Mr. Fitzsimmons did not think the Board could count a space that is not on the property totally and if this is done, they would like an explanation on this.

Mr. Elward asked to speak again and wanted to know if they looked at the entire area here or just this site and Mr. Colagrande said he was giving testimony on just this site.

At this time Mrs. Brady interjected that time is getting on and this hearing will be continued next month; she apologized to the residents that still had questions and promised them that, at the next meeting, the Board will ask for residents’ input first before attorney questions.

As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mrs. Vitale and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm.


________________________________
Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary


Approved:

 

RELATED LINKS