BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
SASSAFRAS PROPERTIES, L.L.C.
HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS
Meeting called to order by Vice Chairman Joseph Graceffo
with a salute to the flag.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Attorney Steven Veltri and Engineer Michael Cristaldi
This is a “Special Meeting” of the Wanaque Planning Board, October 21, 2003 commencing at 8:00 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 579 Ringwood Ave., Wanaque, N.J. for the purpose of having a Public Hearing for Application #17-03 Sassafras Properties, LLC “Holiday Inn Express”, Block 468 Lot 3.01 & 3.02 for Site Plan Approval for the construction of a hotel with accessory features such as exercise room together with any variances and exceptions as may be required.
Atty. A. Michael Rubin, 1330 Hamburg Tpke., Wayne, N.J. came forward on behalf of the applicant and owner of the property at Block 468 &Lot 3.01 & 3.02 located on the south side of Union Ave. Atty. Rubin said he received Eng. Cristaldi’s report today dated September 18, 2003 and also received Planner Jill Hartmann’s report dated October 21, 2003.
Vice Chairman Graceffo said to Atty. Rubin that this application is for Preliminary Approval and Atty. Rubin responded and said this application is for Preliminary & Final Approval. Atty. Veltri said the application and the notice both just say Site Plan and this should be clarified at the outset. Atty. Rubin said everything is fairly straightforward and hopefully the Board will find this to be appropriate and make it a Preliminary & Final Application and that is what has always been intended for this application.
Arthur Hanson, Site Engineer came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Veltri.
Eng. Hanson stated he is a Licensed Professional
Engineer, Planner & Surveyor in the State of N.J. Eng. Hanson told the Board
he has been in this business for over 35 years and has testified before
numerous Planning Boards & Board of Adjustments.
Eng. Hanson went over the Plot Plan that was placed on the
easel. Currently on this site is the existing Burger King with related parking
and drive-in windows and the rest of the site is vacant. Eng. Hanson explained
they are planning on intergrading a “Holiday Inn Express” into the project
basically attaching the two parking lots as permitted by ordinance. A new
entrance and exit on Union for the hotel and intergrading the existing entrance
of the Burger King that is directly opposite Greenwood Ave. into the project.
They are proposing to build a three-story, 81-room hotel with parking on the
eastside and the northside. The rear of the hotel will face onto the existing
lake that’s behind this site. Eng. Hanson went on to describe how to get into
the site and out of the site. Eng. Hanson said, currently the proposal is to
utilized the existing entrance and exit for the Burger King by coming into the
site, take out the first couple of cars in the corner and make a right turn in,
go across the front of the building or under the canopy if you want to leave,
or you can go right pass that driveway and come in the other side. You can exit
the same way or connecting the rear of the parking lot to the rear of the
Burger King and come out Susquehanna Ave. and therefore exit onto Union Ave.
Eng. Hanson mentioned the letter dated September 9, 2003 from Passaic County
Planning Board. There are nine (9) comments in this letter. One in particular,
Item #6 that states “Revised Plans showing that the northern driveway between
this site and the Burger King will be eliminated since it would be too close to
Union Avenue”. Eng. Hanson said when he received this report in September, he
called up the County Engineer Steve Edmonds and asked, how come? What Mr.
Edmonds said to him made sense from a traffic standpoint of safety. They were concerned
about people exiting the hotel, coming out to make a left turn to go up to
Union Avenue and another car already at the intersection of Union Avenue
waiting to make its movement, therefore blocking the driveway. Eng. Hanson
discussed this with Mr. Edmonds, and what Mr. Edmonds agreed to was to
eliminate the exit coming out and make a right in only into the site.
Therefore, all exiting traffic from the hotel would either have to go up to the
other exit/entrance on the westerly side or go to the rear of Burger King
and come out Susquehanna Avenue, therefore there would no
longer be an exit up at the corner only an entrance into the site. Atty. Rubin
asked Eng. Hanson if then they would be in accordance with the Passaic County
guidelines and Eng. Hanson said that’s correct. The only other item would be
Item #4 in the report from Passaic County that refers to “Revised plans showing
any sidewalks required by the Borough of Wanaque”. Atty. Rubin asked Eng.
Hanson if he received any comment from the Borough’s Engineer or Planner as to
requesting sidewalks and Eng. Hanson said no he has not.
Atty. Rubin went over Eng. Cristaldi’s report dated
September 18, 2003. With regard to the 6” Water Main in Union Ave. Eng.
Cristaldi made a recommendation that the water main be upgraded to 12”. Eng.
Hanson said that is not consistent with
the plan. Eng. Hanson said they do not need a 12” water
main to service this facility and the reason being that there are basically
just toilets and showers. They will need a booster pump for the fire
suppression system that can be put on the 6” main. Eng. Hanson said there
basically are no fire hydrants from the Foodtown down to the end of the system.
Eng. Hanson said there probably would be a hydrant somewhere along the frontage
of the site but he’s not quite sure where the Borough, Fire Department or Eng.
Cristaldi would like it. Mr. Hanson said they’re prepared to put one at a
location that’s desirable by the Borough.
Ninety-one spaces are provided for parking but they do
not provide a loading space. Eng. Hanson said it’s not defined loading space,
except for the initial fit-up for the building bringing the beds etc.; there is
no loading requirement. What they did provide, is at the end of the emergency
road, an area where that if a truck has to stop to unload linens etc; they can
park at the end of the emergency road and unload and dolly it up the sidewalk
into the building.
Atty. Rubin mentioned the comment on landscaping and that
they have an unusual situation of Planner Jill Hartmann’s report saying it is
not adequate and Eng. Cristaldi’s report saying it is adequate. Eng. Hanson
said the ordinance requires 1,820 sq. ft. of landscaping and they will provide
it and Eng. Hanson will have to sit down with Eng. Cristaldi and his staff and
Planner Hartmann and figure out exactly what they can do to satisfy the
ordinance. But, under any conditions, there will be 1,820 sq. ft. of
landscaping in the parking lot as per the ordinance. Atty. Rubin added, that in
both reports, that street trees are required every 30 ft. and right now they
scale out to 60 ft. Eng. Hanson said he would like to leave them at 60 ft.
because they found when they start placing shade trees to close together it
doesn’t give them enough space to breathe and then you end up with a two sided
tree because it doesn’t get enough space and light for the trees to mature.
Eng. Hanson said, maybe 60 ft. is too far and maybe 50 ft. would be better, but
30 ft. is a little too close and doesn’t recommend it.
Another issue Eng. Cristaldi mentioned in his report was
the grass paver access road behind the hotel for improved access to the
building. It may not be likely, in case of fire, that a fire truck will be able
to maneuver itself so close to a burning building by using the access road in
the rear. However, for maintenance or other emergencies, it may prove useful.
Eng. Hanson said this road behind the hotel is to be used only for emergencies
such a fire truck and rescue vehicles so they can get to the rear of the
building and there will not be pedestrian vehicles circulating the building and
is only for emergencies.
Atty. Rubin asked Eng. Hanson about the comment in Eng.
Cristaldi’s report referring to a steep drop off into the detention basin from
the parking lot. The retaining wall is approximately a vertical 3-foot drop
followed by a 6-foot steep slope drop. The applicant only provides a timer
guide rail as a barrier. Eng. Hanson said the detention basin for the Burger
King is on an easement in the back corner of the hotel lot. What the applicant
is proposing, is to build a small keystone wall along
the edge and then put a timber guide rail behind it so
that its obvious to everybody that there is a drop off and a guide rail there.
Atty. Rubin asked Eng. Hanson in his professional opinion, is a timber guide
rail appropriate and safe for this location? Eng. Hanson answered and said yes
it is.
Atty. Rubin asked Eng. Hanson to talk about the storm
water runoff. Atty. Rubin wanted to know where does the water go today and
where is it suppose to go after the site is built. Eng. Hanson said the
existing Burger King and its parking lot would discharge into a detention basin
that exists. What is being proposed for this site is an underground storage
system. Eng. Hanson said all of the impervious for this particular lot
including the roof is discharged and regulated so that it flows out of the site
at a very small rate. Part of the system will be below the water level but it
is a sealed system, and with regard to Eng. Cristaldi’s concern about
underground water seeping into the system, the system will be sealed so that no
water that’s coming underground will be taken in and the only time water from
the lake will get into it is if the lake rises and it comes off the banks.
Atty. Rubin asked about site lighting. Eng. Hanson said
he followed a similar pattern of the lights that are on Burger King and
provided lights basically along Union Ave. and in the parking lot to the east
of the hotel. All the lights that are
backing onto Union Ave. will have a cutoff on them so that there will be no
light emanating out past Union Ave.
Atty. Rubin asked Eng. Hanson if there are any other approvals required
from any other agencies besides the Wanaque Planning Board. Eng. Hanson said
yes and they are; the County of Passaic and the NJDEP with regards to wetlands.
With regard to the Sewer Authority, it’s a matter of paying the fee and hooking
up. Atty. Rubin asked Eng. Hanson if there were any Bulk Variances he was
seeking as the site designer and Eng. Hanson said no there were none.
Eng. Cristaldi asked if the height of the building was
going to be a maximum of 40 ft. and Eng. Hanson said yes. Eng. Cristaldi asked
if they were going to put a water main in today, what would the required
minimum size be for a development on a municipal street and Eng. Hanson said
usually the minimum is 8”. Eng. Cristaldi then said, by today’s standards, what
you have out there right now which is 6” is substandard and Eng. Hanson agreed.
Eng. Cristaldi reminded Eng. Hanson that the college is already connected to
that water main with a 6” feed and a 12” fire line and a booster. Eng.
Cristaldi’s point was, they’re claiming they already have enough water there
and they’ve ignored the fact that there’s somebody else down the line that’s
already connected to it. Eng. Hanson said they can take a look at the water
main, but he thinks if it’s going to be built in the street for public
consumption there should be some kind of fair share. Eng. Cristaldi also
mentioned that they told the Board they won’t be unloading anything once the
hotel is in place, but the ordinance requires that you must have a loading space.
Member Slater asked how large the parking spaces are suppose to be by ordinance
and Eng. Hanson said these parking
spaces are 9 X 20’s. Eng. Cristaldi said in the ordinance it says 10 X 20. Eng. Hanson said the spaces that are abutting any curb are 9 X 20. Atty. Veltri said looking at the 17 spaces adjacent to the property line of Lot 3.02, it appears part of those spaces are over the property line and wanted to know how they are dealing with that. Eng. Hanson said that is correct and there will be some cross access in parking degrees between the owners of the Holiday Inn and the Burger King, both the driveway accesses for drainage and for parking. Atty. Veltri said, he then assumes there will be cross easements and access and exit easements also and Eng. Hanson said that’s correct. Atty. Veltri said he doesn’t see an amended site plan for Burger King and it will have to be amended.
Eng. Cristaldi asked how many parking spaces are there and Eng. Hanson said
there are twenty eight (28) 9 X 20’s and fifty six (56) 9
X 18’s and a variance will be needed for the width. Atty. Veltri asked Eng.
Hanson to go through the circulation into and out of the site one more time.
Eng. Hanson said, based upon the County’s comments, if you’re coming down from
Rt. 287, north or southbound, to Greenwood Ave., at that point you could make a
left turn into the site, continue straight down if you wanted to go to Burger
King, or make a right turn and come in. Once your in the site, you park until
your ready to leave the next morning, you can go back out the most westerly
driveway and make a right turn to go back to Rt. 287 or go to the rear of the
Burger King up to Susquehanna Ave. come out and make a left.
Eng. Cristaldi if the County required any sidewalks and
Eng. Hanson said no and only if the Borough does.
Atty. Veltri asked Eng. Cristaldi if the testimony on the
timber guide rail was adequate. Eng. Cristaldi said, if you have the timber
guide rail, a small child can go right over or under a timber guide rail and
sometimes a safety fence can be attached to it. Eng. Hanson agreed to what Eng.
Cristaldi said. Atty. Veltri also asked about the detention basin facility
being 4 ft. below the lake. Eng. Cristaldi asked Eng. Hanson about the
detention pond they have now, is the bottom elevation below the water level in
the lake and Eng. Hanson said yes. Eng. Cristaldi said it seemed dry and
doesn’t know what will happen when they dig next to the property if they’re
going to be excavating into water where the detention pipes will be.
Architect, Maurice Kutt of Maurice Kutt Architectural
Group, 930 South Lahoma, Norman, OK came forward and was sworn in by Atty.
Veltri.
Mr. Kutt told the Board he has been a licensed architect
for 35 years and has a license in N.J., Colorado, Florida, Oklahoma and Texas.
Most of his work since 1984 has been in the hotel industry and has completed
quite a few of the “Holiday Inn Expresses” and renovations for “Holiday Inn”.
Mr. Kutt said the atmosphere of the outside of this proposed hotel is quite
pleasant without all the hustle and bustle traffic with a nice secluded area
with the lake in the back and nearby places to eat at and that is why this site
works so well. Mr. Kutt said the lobby is a three story atrium and the lobby is
done in a lot of granite and wood with a fountain area and a
glass elevator. To the rear of the lobby, is a great room
where the patrons can have a continental breakfast. On the second floor, is a
small gathering room for the use of the people, restrooms, business center with
fax machines and computers, suites with living area and sleeping area, all
rooms will have mini refrigerators, there will also be a small enclosed
swimming pool and workout room. The height of the entire building is 39’ 8”,
the floor to ceiling height is set at 9’ and their allowing 21” for structure
and Mr. Kutt doesn’t think they will need that much and the possibility of reducing
the height by another 9” is very possible.
Atty. Rubin asked if there is traditionally loading docks or areas on
this type of building and Mr. Kutt said he has never done one. Mr. Kutt said
yes if there was a restaurant involved, but with a limited service facility
with just vending machines, this type of stuff comes through the front of the
building. Mr. Kutt had passed out to the Board Members a pamphlet on his
concept of the project with floor plans, elevations and a drawing the project.
Eng. Hanson’s’ plan was marked Exhibit A-1 and a rendering of the project from
Mr. Kutt was marked Exhibit A-2. Eng. Cristaldi asked what kind of roof the
hotel was going to have and Mr. Kutt said it would be a hip roof and the
building will be stick built with fiber mesh concrete floors.
Regional Director of Franchise Sales & Development,
John E. Stetz of Intercontinental Hotels Group, 76 Hellerway, Upper Montclair,
N.J. came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Veltri.
Mr. Stetz explained his job responsibilities are to seek
out secure franchises and development opportunities for the company. Atty.
Rubin asked Mr. Stetz if this site was appropriate for this use and Mr. Stetz
said yes. Mr. Stetz explain what type of cliental would be using this hotel and
he said, typically a male business person of 43 years old, average household
income is $79,500.00, college educated, and professional tradesman or
technician. You also have the traveling businessperson, traveling
businesswoman, groups, and transient leisure people to visit relatives,
hospitals, funeral homes and weddings. The gathering room would be used for
people coming in for family reasons other than the usual business traveler.
There is no food facility other than the upscale continental breakfast. Atty.
Rubin asked Mr. Stetz to explain the exercise room. Mr. Stetz it includes four
to five pieces of equipment such as; step-stairs, treadmill and there might be
a weight machine. Mr. Stetz said the most you would have using this room would
be two or three people at any given time. The pool is an interior enclosed pool
and not a large pool with no diving, but one sufficient enough for a family to
gather around. Atty. Rubin said to Mr. Stetz there are 91 parking spaces and
did he think it was normal or an over-kill for this site. Mr. Stetz said that
it was better than 100%, which is good, and there are rules and regulations and
they defer parking to the entity of the municipality. Mr. Stetz said the high
usage of this facility would primarily be mid-week, Sunday through Thursday and
hours of operation are 24 hours a day. The intensity, in terms of traffic in
and out, would be from 7:00 to 9:00 and again from 3:30 to 7:00.
Mr. Stetz said, when a hotel is 100 % fill, you normally
have 85 to 90% of your parking spaces taken. Atty. Rubin asked Mr. Stetz, if
the “Holiday Inn Express” for some reason did not eventually become the
franchise for this particular hotel, could it easily be utilize by a different franchise
and Mr. Stetz answered yes.
Atty. Rubin said there is a document which is “Holiday
Inn” Brochure” that Mr. Stetz handed out and asked that it be marked Exhibit
A-3.
Member Graceffo asked how many employees would be at this
hotel. Mr. Stetz said there would be 18 full time employees which is spread
over 21 shifts a week and at any given point in time you might have 9 employees
working at the hotel. Member Graceffo asked what the overall appraised value of
this project is and Mr. Stetz said the investment will be in access of
$5,000,000.00 to $5,500,000.00 and once its open and running would probably
bring that figure up to $6,000,000.00.
MOTION TO OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION: made by
Member Slater, seconded by Member Brindisi, voting yes were Members DiMeglio,
Graceffo, Brindisi, Platt, Slater and Balunis.
Sandy Lawson, 28 Haskell Ave. came forward. Ms. Lawson asked about the letter from
the DEP with regard to wetlands. Eng. Hanson said there are three
classifications the State depicted on this site. Eng. Hanson proceeded to show
and describe these areas on the plans that were on the easel in the courtroom.
Ms. Lawson wanted to know what kind of hook-up fees for the sewers would be paid.
Member DiMeglio answered by saying, for every four (4)
rooms it will be one EDU
which Member DiMeglio believes would be $6,665.00 for
every four (4) rooms and the sewer fees will probably be paid by water usage.
Lori Bull, 14 Prospect St. came forward. Ms. Bull
asked Mr. Stetz if this was not the kind of hotel that generally rents rooms
for any thing less than an evening and hopefully the rates will be high enough
to prevent that from happening. Mr. Stetz said this is an investment of
$5,000,00.00 and the economics dictate that this project be A #l 100% right and
it would be very short sighted of anyone to even consider what he thinks Ms.
Bull is suggesting. The average rate they are anticipating at this hotel to
achieve is between $85.00 & $92.00 per night and no short stay business.
Ms. Bull wanted to know the number of washing machines in the laundry room. Mr.
Stetz said it’s usually between three (3) washing machines & three (3)
dryers. Ms. Bull wanted to know if that water volume will be considered in when
they’re working up what size pipes are needed. Mr. Stetz said he believes so,
but the engineer can better answer that question.
Robert Kincaid, 39Union Court came forward. Mr.
Kincaid wanted to know how much of the property would be filled in with regard
to elevation. Eng. Hanson said, basically everything will be on the grade
that’s there, except for the corner. Mr. Kincaid said, every time a project
goes down, it makes his piece of property the
lowest piece of property. Mr. Kincaid asked the Board, when did it become legal to fill in your property to get somebody else water? Mr. Kincaid said, he is the lowest piece of property in this neighborhood; Foodtown came in they raised their elevation, Sewer Authority came in and put a pump station in and raised their elevation and the State came in and raised their elevation. The State assured Mr. Kincaid that the tunnel they did for Rt. 287 would work and it does not work. Mr. Kincaid would like it put in black and white that the detention ponds are going to work. Eng. Hanson tried to reassure Mr. Kincaid that the volume of water will be reduced after they are all done building and doing the pavement there will be less than there is today.
Sandy Lawson, 28 Haskell Ave. came forward again.
Ms. Lawson said after listening to Mr. Kincaid, would it help if they looked at
the possibility of making the parking lot somewhat pervious so that some of the
water could go into the ground. Eng. Hanson spoke up and said that he thinks
Ms. Lawson is talking about making the pavement so the water could seep into
it. The problem with that is, is that we are located in the north and there is
a freezing cycle in our weather. In the winter time with a very fine mist and
if it seeped through and froze, the parking lot would start lifting up and
there would be pot holes all over the place. Eng. Cristaldi told Ms. Lawson
that’s why we have detention facilities.
Richard Walters, 3 Seminole Path came forward. Mr.
Walters said Mr. Kincaid probably hasn’t had that many problems this year
because the caretaker for Bi-Coastal Corp. has been keeping an eye on the lake.
Mr. Walters lives on the mountain and he can attest to how much water comes
down and there’s no stopping it. Mr. Walters other concern is the traffic on
Susquehanna Ave. that is coming from Burger King and in the future will be
coming from the hotel and will there be any changes made to that road. Eng.
Hanson said there will be no changes made to the road and Susquehanna Ave. is a
private road totally on Burger King property and which Mr. Walters has the
right to use. Mr. Walters wanted to know about the lighting in the rear of the hotel and Eng. Hanson said there is
none proposed. Mr. Walters asked about
security to the neighborhood with regard to the transients staying at the hotel
and going onto the private property behind the hotel. Mr. Stetz said, with the
1400 locations of the “Express” brand and 1400 of the “Holiday Inn” brand, they
have never identified with what Mr. Walters identified as a problem.
David Teitelbaum, 15 Borman Drive came
forward. Mr. Teitelbaum concern was
with the tractor-trailers and RV’s making the turn radius in the parking lot.
Mr. Stetz said they haven’t provided any truck parking at all and these vehicles
will not be aloud to bring their rigs onto the property. Mr. Teitelbaum’s other
concern was the sewer tax on this hotel. Member DiMeglio explained that for
every four (4) units they would pay $6,665.00 per “EDU” for hook up fees. Mr.
Teitelbaum wanted to know how much a year this hotel will be paying for sewer
taxes. Mr. DiMeglio said that would be based on the water usage. Mr. Teitelbaum
also wanted to know what the taxes would be on this hotel. Member Balunis said
there is a State Hotel Tax and
Barbara Kincaid, 39 Union Ct. came forward. Ms.
Kincaid said in 1987 when the sewers were put in, a Pump Station was put near
her house. Ms. Kincaid went on to say, that with this 81- room hotel, would the
Pump Station be able to handle it. Member DiMeglio said it would have to be
upgraded. Eng. Cristaldi said, the Board can only make it subject to their
approval and they will have to go to the Sewer Authority and ask them. Member
DiMeglio suggested to Ms. Kincaid to go to the Sewer Authority and ask them
what will be done. Ms. Kincaid wanted to let the Board know that with regard to
the truck parking, the hotel is saying they will not allow it, but the trucks
do go to Burger King and park there all night and let them run. Atty. Rubin
told Ms. Kincaid that Eric Mund the owner of Burger King who is here tonight,
has instructed the managers at Burger King to stop the truckers from parking
there all night. Ms. Kincaid also said the truckers are parked on Rt.287 all
night and you can hear the trucks running. Member Graceffo suggested she let
the local Police know about this situation.
Nancy Beck, 164 Greenwood Ave. came forward. Ms.
Beck’s concern is lighting from the hotel. The lighting from Burger King
already extends well beyond the property across Union Ave. and across her front
yard into her front window. Therefore, if the lighting for the hotel is no
better, she is going to have a problem.
Eng. Hanson told
Ms. Beck, on the landscaping and lighting plan they have intermingled the trees
and lights and once he gets together with Eng. Cristaldi, they’re probably
going to double up on the trees and the trees are going to be put closer to
Union Ave. than the light fixtures. Member Graceffo mentioned that this
lighting issue is mentioned in Eng. Cristaldi’s report that the lights be
shielded. Ms. Beck’s second concern is the traffic and she understands that
there will be no exit from the hotel onto the driveway at Ringwood Ave. and
Eng. Hanson said that is correct. Ms. Beck wanted to know if the exit would be
maintained from the Burger King at Union Ave. and Eng. Hanson said yes. Ms.
Beck suggested that some sort of application should be made to the County for a
traffic light because no one ever seems really sure who has right of way. Eng.
Hanson said the only group that can give permission for a traffic light is the
State of N.J. and since this is a County Road, the County would probably have
to initiate it but they do not want to own it. Eng. Hanson said this
intersection doesn’t meet the requirements set by the “DOT” for a traffic
light.
MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION: made by Member
Slater, seconded by Member DiMeglio, voting yes were Members DiMeglio,
Graceffo, Brindisi, Platt, Slater and Balunis.
Atty. Rubin came forward and respectfully said, that the
Board does have
enough information based upon all the testimony, residents
testimony and all the
comments made, to come to a decision and allow the
applicant to move forward with Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for a
hotel on the site. Obviously, Atty. Rubin said, there are State Permits that
still have to be obtained and Passaic County Requirements have to be met. State
and County requirements would be subject to approval and with some items they
would have to sit down with the Board’s Engineer or Planner in order to resolve
on site the way things should be.
Member Graceffo said to Atty. Rubin that he came in this
evening looking for both Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and yes
there was excellent testimony produced and the project itself is one that the
community could welcome in terms of its value as a ratable. There are some
questions that still have to be answered and Member Graceffo’s suggestion at
this time would be to outline those open end questions and maybe get them
resolved by the next meeting where the Board could provide the applicant with
the vote in terms of its Final and Preliminary approval. Member Graceffo
mentioned, because of the change in exiting out of the site, it affects the
Burger King site and creates a change in their site plan with regard to what
was initially approved, known easements in terms of drawings and parking and
what’s coming in and out of the two properties, major concern in reference to
water supply and the 6” pipe being adequate, parking variance needs to be
addressed, circulation plan for in and out of the facility, a Developer’s
Agreement, review Planner Hartmann’s report along with Eng. Cristaldi’s report,
a review of the plans by the Fire Marshall to determine whether or not there is
access, and if we have all the required approvals on file pertaining to the
wetlands.
Atty. Rubin commented that the Developer’s Agreement has
to wait until the resolution is done.
Member DiMeglio reminded the Board there’s a Municipality
Convention in November and Atty. Rubin said he would be at that convention.
Member Graceffo told Atty. Rubin the Regular Meeting for November might be
cancelled due to the convention and if there’s a need for a “Special Meeting”
he’s sure the Board Members will make every possible attempt to accommodate
Atty. Rubin.
Atty. Rubin said during the next several days, between
the Board Secretary and Tom Carroll, they can figure out what will be available
for a “Special Meeting”. Atty. Rubin also said, since a date cannot be selected
tonight, he would send out a new notice.
MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 10:34 P.M.: made by Member
DiMeglio and seconded by Member Balunis.
______________________________
Gerri Marotta
Planning Board Secretary