Borough of Brielle, NJ
| August 12, 2008
August 12, 2008
|The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, August 12, 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 – Thomas Condon, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James
Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, John Visceglia
Absent – Mayor Thomas B. Nicol, Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo, Susan Brady, Terre Vitale (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 30 people in the audience.
Vice-Chairperson Condon then called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. He 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 July 8, 2008 meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Visceglia, all aye, no nays.
A notice was received from the NJ D.E.P. for Block 75.01, Lot 8 & 8.01 & Block 87, Lots 5 & 16.07, Ashley Avenue, owned by George & Ruth Harms, to allow reconstruction of a single family dwelling & bulkhead and construction of a dock.
The Board then turned to the continuation of a hearing for Block 107.02, Lot 21, 1002 Cedar Lane, owned by Thomas V. Campo & Karen J. Kennedy. This was continued as one item of notice has to be corrected and Cablevision was now properly noticed on this application. As there were no further comments or questions on this application, a draft Resolution had been prepared and there were no corrections on it, the application was approved and the following Resolution presented for approval:
“WHEREAS, Karen Kennedy (the “Applicant”), having a mailing address of 1002 Cedar Lane, Brielle, N.J.08730, has 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 July, 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 107.02, Lot 21 on the municipal tax map.
2. The property is located in the R-2 zone.
3. Applicant proposes to construct a rear addition, front porch addition and second story addition to an existing single-family residential dwelling.
4. The following variances had been applied for:
ITEM REQUIRED PROVIDED
Front Setback 40 feet 28.33 feet
Rear Setback 40 feet 19.5 feet
Lot Width 125 feet 93 feet
(swimming pool) 40 feet 23 feet
5. Zoning Officer Alan P. Hilla, Jr. prepared a report to the applicant dated March 21, 2008. The Board adopts the findings in that report and incorporates that document in this Resolution by reference.
6. Anthony Busch, Jr., A.I.A., provided expert testimony on behalf of the applicant. He explained that this property is uniquely situated since it fronts on three public streets. Additionally, he said that the lot has an irregular shape because the property lines along Riverview and Sunset Drives are not parallel to each other.
Mr. Busch explained that the applicant proposes to construct a second story addition over the footprint of the existing dwelling. Also, a 154 square foot addition is proposed at the southeast corner of the dwelling. This addition will be in line with the rear (south side) of the home. That addition is proposed to be set back 19.5 feet from the rear property line. A decorative front porch is proposed to be constructed at the front of the building. An arbor is proposed between the west side of the home and an existing in-ground swimming pool.
Mr. Busch testified that the proposed height of the structure (34.8 feet) will be less than the maximum building height permitted in this zone. He verified with Zoning Officer Alan P. Hilla that the height is measured from Riverview Drive. The witness explained that the third floor of the structure will be used for storage purposes only, and stipulated that no living space will be constructed or maintained in the attic area. The witness opined that the proposed additions would be in keeping with other dwellings in the area and provide a substantial aesthetic improvement on this site.
7. No objectors appeared in opposition to this development application.
8. The Board finds and determines that:
(a) Variances relating to lot width and the front setback of the swimming pool are existing conditions.
(b) The rear setback of the existing dwelling (19.5 feet as contrasted to the required 40 feet) is an existing condition. The proposed addition at the southeast corner of the home expands this variance condition; however, the addition is in line with the rear (south side) of the residence and will not adversely impact the structures on adjacent Lot 20.
(c) The front porch addition (571 square feet) provides an attractive aesthetic feature to the proposed home. Although it extends into the existing conforming front yard area, the intrusion will not adversely impact neighboring properties.
(d) The proposed improvements will provide a substantial aesthetic improvement to this property and will have a positive impact upon neighboring properties.
(e) The proposed improvements provide a desirable visual environment and maintain 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 12th day of August, 2008, 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. There shall be no living space contained within the third floor level (attic) of the proposed structure. The third floor level shall be restricted to use as a storage area. In order to establish this condition as a matter of public record, applicant is required to record a Deed of Restriction in the Monmouth County Clerk’s Office. This restriction shall insure to the benefit of the Borough of Brielle, and cannot be modified without the written approval of the Governing Body or the municipal Planning Board. The proposed Deed shall be subject to review and approval of the Board Attorney. No construction permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the applicant complies with this condition.
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 applicant, Borough Construction Official, Zoning Officer and all other parties in interest.”
A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Heavey and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomas Condon, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger,
Charles Sarnasi, John Visceglia,
Ineligible to Vote: James Harman, Tim Sigler
The Board then turned to the application for variance relief for Block 105, Lot 7, 1020 Riverview Drive, owned by Gary Pstrak, to allow construction of a new detached garage and driveway expansion. Grading – no changes in excess of 2 feet, up to 3 foot change in grading proposed. Curb Cuts – 5 feet from adjacent properties, 6.1 foot encroachment onto adjacent property existing and proposed.
The fee of $300 was paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners as well as the newspaper were properly notified.
At this time Gary Pstrak came forward and was sworn in. Mr. Pstrak said he wishes to build a detached garage behind his existing home and needs two variances to do this. He has to dig into a hill behind his house and will have to move about 2-3 feet which creates the need for a grading plan. He will re-direct the water so it does not run into neighbors. He explained that, when the home was built back in 1950, the driveway encroached onto the neighbor’s property by a sliver; he cannot move the driveway as there is a large tree on the other side of it. Mr. Sarnasi asked about the grading surface in front of the garage and was told it will be macadam; Mr. Sarnasi was concerned with the drainage and runoff down Riverview Drive but Mr. Hilla said there was an existing inlet at the corner. Mr. Sarnasi asked Mr. Pstrak if much water runs onto Riverview Drive and thought that perhaps gravel may be better here. Mr. Pstrak said not much water comes out of his driveway, there is a berm with a tree that sucks up the water before it even goes down the driveway. Mr. Hilla said a dry well for roof runoff may not be a bad idea as it may minimize the water runoff and Mr. Pstrak was agreeable to this.
Mr. Sigler asked which way the pavement pitches in the front and Mr. Pstrak said it was toward the berm. Mr. Heavey asked if the sliver of encroachment is taken away is there still 100 feet and the answer was yes.
Mr. Pstrak said he had a Letter of Consent from the neighbors concerning this encroachment and Mr. Condon asked that the Board have a copy of that letter for the file.
Mr. Langenberger was concerned with what may happen if this home is sold but Mr. Pstrak again said there is a gigantic tree by the driveway that he does not want to cut down. Mr. Langenberger then commented that he had no problem with this variance as it will be set back off the street.
At this time the hearing was open to the public for questions and there was no response so the Board went into discussion. Mr. Visceglia asked that there be no residence or plumbing on the second floor and Mr. Pstrak agreed; Mr. Fitzsimmons said this will be put in the Resolution. As there was no further discussion the hearing was then opened to the public for comments and, again, there was no response.
Mr. Sarnasi said he would be in favor of this application if there was a drywell installed and both Mr. Heavey and Mr. Sigler agreed with this stipulation.
At this time Mr. Sigler made a motion to accept this application, with the stipulations as above stated, this seconded by Mr. Harman and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomas Condon, Thomas Heavey, James Harman, James
Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, John Visceglia
Mr. Fitzsimmons said a Resolution will be prepared for memorialization at next month’s meeting.
The Board then turned to a Site drawing submitted by Brielle Elementary School for parking lot alterations. Mr. Hilla came forward for a cursory review and told the Board he was asked to give his input 6-8 months ago on this matter. The drop off area is now awkward and they want to get pedestrians out of harm’s way. The school proposes to close the gate between the Borough Hall and the School and create a pedestrian walkway. He has not spoken to Chick Gilligan about the drainage and did not have information on lighting and buffering but can inquire about this.
Mr. Condon noted that the handicapped space seemed to be far away and Mr. Hilla thought this may have to do with the drainage arrangement so the water will not go through the flat area by the school, this may be a necessity. They made a parallel lane for handicapped and pedestrians; they need trash receptacles, too. Mr. Visceglia asked if they need another outlet for stormwater and Mr. Hilla said there is an inlet here and this may work its way out to Union Lane, the water either goes to Union Lane or back to the school grounds. It was also noted that there be very little more impervious surface put in.
Mr. Langenberger asked if they need to review this or is the School just asking for input out of courtesy. Mr. Fitzsimmons said they seek the Board’s comments but do not need Board approval. Mr. Langenberger personally thought all children should be dismissed at the west side parking lot for safety but Mr. Hilla said they cannot stop the use of the Borough Hall lot but, by moving the gate, will utilize the Borough lot that is not used much during the day. This new plan will move traffic and the focal point where there is little vehicular traffic, people will still walk between cars but that will happen anyway.
Mr. Sarnasi asked about the spaces closest to the building and will there be cars coming in and out; he wondered if this will cause a bottleneck. Mr. Hilla said that happens now and this will help channel this with curbing; Mr. Sarnasi said he could see cars backing in when dropping off kids.
Mr. Sigler suggested making this a teacher’s parking lot but Mr. Hilla said the Kindergarten rooms are in this location and those children are dropped off and dismissed at this lot. They did talk about this and it could be suggested to the school, this could then be just a drop-off point; Mr. Sigler felt that parallel parking for SUV’s is not going to work here.
Mr. Fitzsimmons then asked if there were any objections to the plan and Mr. Condon questioned if the suggestion could be made for faculty parking. Mr. Visceglia disagreed and felt this should be a drop-off only with no parking, at least when school starts and stops; they can revert back to parking when the school is in session, this will keep people on the sidewalk. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked for direction from the Board so he can draft a proper letter. The Board agreed that the faculty concept may not work but suggested making this a drop-off point only and Mr. Fitzsimmons said he will draft a letter to the Board of Education with the Board’s suggestions.
Due to the nature and length of the continuing Omnipoint hearing, the Board felt this was a good time to go into Executive Session on another matter and the following Resolution was presented at 8:00 pm, on a motion by Mr. Heavey, seconded by Mr. Sigler:
“WHEREAS, the Open Public Meetings Act permits the exclusion of the Public from a meeting in certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the Brielle Planning Board is of the opinion that such circumstances presently exist,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle as follows:
1. The public shall be excluded from discussion of and action upon the hereinafter specified subject matter.
2. The general nature of the subject matter to be discussed is as follows: litigation.
3. It is anticipated at this time that the above stated subject matter will be made public in the near future.”
The above Resolution was approved by unanimous vote by the Board and they
went into the lunchroom for approximately 15 minutes. At 8:15 pm the Board came back to the dais and went back into public session on a motion by Mr. Condon, seconded by Mr. Langenberger and unanimously approved by the Board, all aye. Before starting the Omnipoint Mr. Fitzsimmons told the audience that the Executive Session was about litigation on another Planning Board matter and did not have anything to do with the Omnipoint hearing which was about to continue.
The Board then went back to Old Business and 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 and it is to be put on the record that Mr. Sigler, who was absent for the July meeting, had listened to a recording of that meeting and was eligible to vote on this matter.
Mr. Warren Stillwell, Esq. once again came before the Board on behalf of the applicant, Omnipoint Communications. He said that Mr. Dominic Villeco was present again this evening to continue testimony and, in regards to the parking, there will be no testimony on that tonight as they are still working on this. Mr. Villeco came forward and was reminded he is still under oath.
Mr. Villeco had a new exhibit to present and this was marked as Exhibit A-12, a Drive Test done in June of 2007 for Omnipoint – T-Mobile. He explained that they use mechanized hardware and software; they drive around and a GPS matches their findings and then they are able to plot a database with caught radio frequencies. They are tuned for frequencies licensed I this area and are able to take that information and get an idea of signals in a particular area.
Mr. Stillwell noted 3 colors on the exhibit and Mr. Villecco said the blue and green correspond to the blue and green of exhibit A-10 and A-11, the blue is up to -76 DBA and green is to -84 DBA, up to -95 is in red. There is a GPS and phone tied to the laptop and this is all done by driving around. Mr. Stillwell asked if this accurately reflects the frequencies on the date in question and the answer was yes, this was done on June 23, 2007 when trees were in full bloom.
Mr. Stillwell asked for a comparison with Exhibit A-10 and A-11 and Mr. Villeco showed the area in question on Exhibit A-12, which is in the middle of this Exhibit, on Route 70. In regards to the colors in the area, there is plenty of red, some green and some areas not even plotted as those areas cannot hold a call; this compares to Exhibit A-10 which shows the existing coverage. The way to compare is to look at the colors of A-10 and see how they match Exhibit A-12, it’s usually very close in color; there may be a “canyon” effect in some places which gives coverage and then trees may block some.
They collect this data, enter it and compare and tune it. If the data matches the Drive Test, its good; the Drive Test collects the real data, but can only drive roads, this is where the propagation comes in and can get a broader coverage and can include buildings. The Drive Test confirms the propagation; these two exhibits are close and support the accuracy of the exhibits.
Mr. Sarnasi asked about the other towers in this area and Mr. Villeco said they are all labeled on Exhibit A-10. In the center of the map is a site at Routes 70 & 34, there is one at 800 Ashley Avenue in Brielle, one at 416 New York Ave. in Point Beach, one at 3214 Lakewood Road in Point Pleasant, one at Morris Avenue in Brick and one at Burnt Tavern Road in Brick. Mr. Sarnasi asked about towers if you go west and Mr. Villeco said they eventually will go there, they hope to cover all areas. Mr. Visceglia asked if there have been any new towers since this drive test and the answer was no.
Mr. Sarnasi asked about the antenna placements and Mr. Villeco said the top third of the pole has fiberglass components and can get up to 3 levels of antennas. Mr. Sarnasi asked if they would be next to each other and Mr. Villeco said they are separated by about 10 feet; the antennas are about 4-5 feet tall and all this is shown on the plans. There can be antennas at 100 feet, 90 feet and 80 feet.
Mr. Vicesglia asked, as there are still wooded areas, is it mainly the main road they want to connect, for thorofares. Mr. Villeco said the vehicular corridors are the focus but the side areas are considered as well, both businesses and residences. Mr. Visceglia asked about dropping the height of the pole to 80 feet and if that would impact anything and the answer was 100 feet is really the minimum, they need 6 antennas and can get 3 on each level, 3 at 100 feet and 3 at 90 feet; even at this height there will still be holes. Mr. Visceglia asked if the holes will get larger if the height is dropped and Mr. Villeco said they just looked at these two heights. Mr. Sarnasi asked about the formula for figuring this and Mr. Villeco referenced the tree heights and elevation differences to be 70 feet high will not have coverage as trees will interefere.
He then said that the poles need to “overlap” their coverages for maximum use, they may have an overload on one site and an underload on another, thus the need for more poles; terrain comes into play also. If another carrier decides to use the 80 foot high portion, they may not need as much coverage as T-Mobile does here.
Mr. Visceglia asked if they could get better coverage if they were over 100 feet and Mr. Villeco said yes, but they can’t have the sites too high either or they will get interference.
Mr. Langenberger noted that one of the weaker points of communication for emergency services is in this area and asked if there is space for a repeater antenna on this pole; if so, it may be an opportunity for the police, fire co. & first aid squad. Mr. Villeco stated there was, at the top, especially if it is a whip antenna, they have done this type of work on other towns. In Camden County there is a pole like this at the police substation, it works great; also, it would not be seen as much if it was a whip antenna. Mr. Langenberger noted it would not help Brielle money-wise, but may help emergency services. Mr. Stillwell spoke and commented that, with every application, they always make space for emergency communications. Mr. Langenberger asked if there would be any charge to the Borough for this use and Mr. Stillwell said they do not supply the antenna but they do not charge for it to be on the pole.
Mr. Condon wanted to know about the height of the other poles in the area and was told 117 feet at Rte. 34 in Wall, 162 feet on Ashley Avenue, 100 feet in Point Pleasant Beach, 100 feet in Point Pleasant and 106 feet & 117 feet in Brick Twp. Mr. Condon noted that a new one was just erected by Hinck’s Turkey store in Wall Township, it looks like a windmill on top. Mr. Villeco was aware of this brand new site, it is a 100 foot pole and a 10 foot windmill.
At this time the hearing was opened to the public for questions to Mr. Villeco. Mr. Michael Elward, Esq., representing Wall Township, came forward and wanted to know if Omnipoint had been contacted by Brielle Police or Fire Co. about putting antennas on this pole and Mr. Villeco said no.
Mr. Dan Udovic, a Professional Engineer in Communications and hired by Wall Township came forward and asked about the Drive-by with the trees in foliage. Mr. Villeco said ¾ of the year there are tree leaves out so they used this time, this is the more realistic way to test as signals are affected by foliage. Mr. Udovic asked about the white on the diagrams presented and if that was a gap in coverage – Mr. Villeco said that is a gap that is beyond the standard, as shown in Exhibit A-10. If you look at this exhibit, you have a good ¾ mile of substandard service. Also, there are design levels on the coverage, they are not saying one can’t make a call, but may only have one or two bars of service; in the right place they can get three to four bars for making calls.
Mr. Udovic asked if the signal level in the white area is less than in the blue area and the answer was that the white area he was pointing to was by the Parkway and, yes, that may be a weaker area. Mr. Udovic asked if a tower was put here by the Parkway could it service this area in Brielle and Mr. Villeco said no, it will not service an area 2-3 miles away, they can get a 1 to 1 ½ mile radius on these poles. Mr. Udovic said that on the next exhibit, A-11, it does show a beefed up coverage in the white area and Mr. Villeco agreed, but that is not the dominant service here, it may bounce off other poles; he felt they really should have another site in Wall by the Parkway. He went on to say he was working on this Brielle site now and was not concerned about that section of Wall Township at this time, he was before this Board with this application only and acknowledged there are other places with gaps.
Mr. Udovic asked if they looked into alternative ways such as multiple towers at lesser heights and Mr. Villeco said no, the only other poles are telephone poles and they are not above the tree canopy. They do not even look at power poles and there is no clearance there. Mr. Udovic referenced the Brielle water tower which is 93 feet above sea level and is 135 feet tall from grade and he questioned putting antennas there. Mr. Villeco said that site is too close to Route 70 and 34 in Wall and it is not where this needs to be, they need coverage from this location. Mr. Udovic felt this may be needed in the future and Mr. Villeco said maybe, but not now. If they use microcells, as suggested by Mr. Udovic, they would need hundreds of them throughout Brielle; that technology is used in Manhattan but not in this area - this site is in a perfect spot from their design standards.
Mr. Udovic asked if they could cross the bridge and go 1800 feet farther south? Mr. Villeco said the site at Crystal Point is not available. Mr. Udovic then asked if someone goes all over this area to seek spots and ask the owners; Mr. Villeco said he did not do the real estate work on this. The engineers find their search area and then release that to real estate people who go to land owners and see if anyone wants to lease to them. He did not know all the people that were talked to, but he did know there are no structures tall enough for this project. He commented that, at the last meeting, one of the Board members asked about using the Dunkin Donuts site and the answer was that the coverage would be the same with a pole like this.
Mr. Udovic then said that T-Mobile is advertising long distance ability and Mr. Villeco said that, in order to have this, you need a broad-band connection and you have to replace your modem; you plug your home phone into it and it sort of works like a wi-fi and is limited to low wattage. It may provide some level of service but only for that customer and no one else so it does not help the retail area and is not an alternative technology for this project. Mr. Udovic asked if there was technology that you do not need these poles if you have an antenna on your roof and Mr. Villeco said there are devices for this that may be used in an office environment but, again, you would have to put one in every single home and place which is not viable as they cost about $2,200 per unit.
Mr. Condon noted that it was now 9:15 pm and asked Mr. Udovic if he could wrap up his questions. Mr. Udovic asked if he would be able to present testimony at another time and was told yes, there will be a time for statements at the end of the application hearing.
Mr. Michael Elward, Esq., again came forward and again asked about the Police or Fire Company contacting Omnipoint and Mr. Fitzsimmons told him that this has been stated three times that he does not know of any contact on this. Mr. Elward then asked about the estimate of trees at about 80 feet and Mr. Villeco said yes, they could be less. Mr. Fitzsimmons then asked the audience to remember that Mr. Villeco is a radio frequency engineer and does not do marketing – please remember this when asking questions.
Mr. John Harkrader of 2649 River Road in Wall came forward and said he was a T-Mobile customer and his home is in the white zone; he has good service all the time and would like to have it explained why he was in the white area. Mr. Villeco said the area Mr. Harkrader pointed to was near where they have service and the drive tests have shown these levels in this area, they need to be able to give access to all types of service. He gave the example that he had a Motorola phone and replaced it and he found it did not have the same reception – Blackberries, etc. require more usage and they are trying to get all this type of coverage in.
Marie Clayton came forward and said she also was a T-Mobile customer and they use about 50 phones for their business; she asked why not look at other locations with poorer service? Mr. Villeco said they are working on other sites, as well as this one. Ms. Clayton asked if there were specific complaints for this area and Mr. Villeco said he did not know, his job is design standards.
Mr. Michael Carroll of Wall Township asked how many years will it be before this is outdated and Mr. Villeco said not any time soon; the way the parameters operate they have not taken a tower down yet. Mr. Carroll noted that technology is always changing and Mr. Villecco agreed, they have gone from large phones with antennas to what we have today; the towers still work with these changes. Mr. Carroll asked that, maybe in the future, there will be lower towers and Mr. Villeco said there is a limited amount of frequency given by the FCC so they need more sites for evolution of the network. Some wireless companies are doing this, getting more sites and lower frequencies. Mr. Carroll asked if, in the future, there may be too many cell towers and the answer was not now, they need the heights and sites. Maybe in 10 years it will be different but areas still have to be served. Mr. Carroll asked if cell towers are needed every two miles and Mr. Villeco said yes, the frequency allocated by the FCC is a very limited range and they build what they need to build. Mr. Carroll asked if there will be a red light blinking on tope of this pole and the answer was no, that is needed for anything over 200 feet high.
Mr. Joe Martone of Fox Lane in Wall asked if Mr. Villeco knew the number of customers T-Mobile has in Brielle and he did not. Mr. Fitzsimmons said Mr. Villeco is not employed by Omnipoint. Mr. Martone then asked about the new windmill tower in Wall and if there are houses by that. Mr. Villeco said he knew about apartments across the way, but did not know how close they were. Mr. Martone then asked if the antennas would be on the outside and the answer was yes, this will look like a flagpole with antennas on it.
Michael Clayton of Wall Township wanted to know if the majority of the coverage would be for Ocean County; he was told the coverage will be in Brielle, Wall & Brick, they are really filling the gap in the entire area here. They do not look at a town or county but the coverage area. Mr. Clayton then asked if they had looked at any sites on the highway, through D.O.T.;Mr. Villeco said he did not know. Mr. Clayton then asked if the exhibits are for all cell towers and the answer was they are just showing the T-Mobile towers, also, there are no other existing towers in this area of Route 70. Mr. Clayton asked about the height and Mr. Villeco again explained they need 100 feet at a minimum.
Mr. Dan Healey of River Road, Wall, asked if it would be beneficial to look at the Dunkin Donut site or the gas station next to that and Mr. Villeco said Omnipoint will present a Planner and this can be addressed at that time, he again explained to the audience that the owners at this location were the ones that were interested in having the pole on their property. Mr. Healey asked if the Planner be here for the next meeting and Mr. Stillwell answered and he did not know as they still have to address the parking situation and then they will go on to the Planner.
As there were no further questions of Mr. Villeco, Mr. Condon announced that this hearing will be continued at the Tuesday, September 9th meeting of the Planning Board.
Mr. Hilla asked for Board input on a matter that has been dragging, the Cunningham property on Susan Lane which was to have landscaping work done as per approvals by the Planning Board. They had put up a Performance Bond with the town and have asked for a release; they have done some work that was never approved by the Board.
The attorney for the Cunninghams contacted Mr. Hilla on this and Mr. Hilla’s thoughts were for the applicants to come back before the Board for amended site plan approval as the original approval was for change of grade and soil removal. He did have a sketch for the Board review and passed it around. He explained that the applicants’ attorney says that this sketch shows what is in place and there have been modifications to the drainage plan, however, he felt the drainage issue has been satisfactorily addressed. There also now is a slate patio in the rear and a walkway on the side; the Cunninghams say they did stabilize the site and they should be able to have their bond released.
Mr. Hilla thought there was validity in this but they did not build according to what was approved. Mr. Langenberger asked if there is any more erosion on the left side and Mr. Hilla said they have been able to stabilize the side and they put in landscaping. Mr. Langenberger was familiar with the site as he had calls there for code enforcement, they had very heavy erosion. Mr. Hilla said as of two months ago he did not see any and wanted to know if the northwest side was stable, can the bond be released.
Mr. Visceglia asked if they did the additional grading and the answer was yes, the areas are now stable but it took a long time. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the improvements were done through building permits and Mr. Hilla said yes. Mr. Visceglia asked if all these improvements fixed the drainage and Mr. Hilla said yes, they have plantings in the slope they made in the back yard but he was willing to reconfirm this. Mr. Visceglia said he did not have a problem if this was done to fix a drainage problem.
After a brief discussion, it was decided that Mr. Hilla and Mr. Langenberger should visit the site to make sure all is in order; if they are satisfied, the bond can be released.
Mr. Fitzsimmons then commented on the Walter & Elizabeth Wall appeal of their denial of their minor subdivision for their property at 643 Rankin Road. He said Judge Cleary overturned the Board’s denial and there should be a written report received; the Board then has 45 days to appeal. The neighbor’s attorney said they will assume the costs for this appeal to the Appellate Division and the Board can allow their attorney, Peter Wegener, to be the attorney with the Maguires, who are the neighbors, paying the costs. The Board was agreeable to allow this to be handled this way.
As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Condon, seconded by Mr. Visceglia and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary