ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Graham Petto. Mr. Petto read the notice of compliance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act and indicated that appropriate notice was forwarded to the officially designated newspaper of Montclair and posted in the Municipal Building. The schedule of meetings is also posted on the Township website.
ROLL CALL:
Mr. Petto called the roll. Present were Mr. Harrison, Mr. Fleischer, Mr. Allen, Mr. Church, Mr. McCullough, Mr. Simon, Ms. Harris, Mr. Caulfield, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Petto. Mr. Moore was excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
November 13, 2019
A motion to approve the minutes as amended was made and seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously with Mr. Fleischer abstaining.
December 4, 2019
A motion to approve the minutes as amended was made and seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously with Mr. Allen, Ms. Harris and Mr. Caulfield abstaining.
2020 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
A motion to approve the calendar as submitted was made and seconded. The calendar was approved unanimously.
2020 BOARD PROFESSIONALS
Board Attorney
A motion was made and seconded to approve the resolution appointing Stickel, Koenig, Sullivan and Drill as Attorney to the Board for 2020. The resolution was approved unanimously.
Board Engineer
A motion was made and seconded to approve the resolution appointing Suburban Consulting Engineers as Engineer to the Board for 2020. The resolution was approved unanimously.
Board Parking Professional
A motion was made and seconded to approve the resolution appointing Level G Associates as Parking Professional to the Board for 2020. The resolution was approved unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution for App. 2649: 14 College Avenue. Ki S Lee. Bulk variance of rear yard setback for deck addition in the R-1 One Family Zone.
A motion was made to approve the resolution as amended and was seconded. The resolution was approved unanimously with Mr. Allen, Ms. Harris and Mr. Caulfield abstaining.
Resolution for App. 2652: 334 North Mountain Avenue. Paul Spagnoletti. Bulk variance of maximum building width for new dwelling in the R-1 One Family Zone.
A motion was made to approve the resolution as amended and was seconded. The resolution was approved unanimously with Mr. Allen, Ms. Harris and Mr. Caulfield abstaining.
Resolution for App. 2657: 10 Washington Street. Malgorzata Dolgan. Bulk variance in R-2 Two Family Zone.
A motion was made to approve the resolution as submitted and was seconded. The resolution was approved unanimously with Mr. Allen, Ms. Harris and Mr. Caulfield abstaining.
Resolution for App. 2658: 81 Mission Street. Malgorzata Dolgan. Bulk variance in R-2 Two Family Zone.
A motion was made to approve the resolution as submitted and was seconded. The resolution was approved unanimously with Mr. Allen, Ms. Harris and Mr. Caulfield abstaining.
Resolution for App. 2654: 15 Oxford Street. Frank Amabile. Certification of non-conforming use for a three-family dwelling in the R-2 Two Family zone.
A motion was made to approve the resolution as submitted and was seconded. The resolution was approved unanimously with Mr. Allen, Ms. Harris and Mr. Caulfield abstaining.
App. 2641: 117 Valley Road. 117 Valley Road, LLC. Use variance and site plan for three townhomes in the R-2 Two Family Zone.
A motion was made to approve the resolution as submitted and was seconded. The resolution was approved unanimously with Mr. Allen, Ms. Harris and Mr. Caulfield abstaining.
NEW BUSINESS – (ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
App. 2643: 10 Alexander Avenue – Bruce Bird. Bulk variance of the maximum permitted building width for addition to dwelling in the R-1 One Family Zone.
Mr. Petto announced that the applicant has withdrawn the application pending before the Board.
App. 2647: 48 Label Street – John Florek. Bulk variances of the front and side yard setbacks for addition to one-family dwelling in the R-2 Two Family Zone.
The Board introduced the application. Present for the application was attorney for the applicant Alan Trembulak and the applicant John Florek.
Mr. Trembulak reviewed the previous testimony before the Board and noted the appearance by the applicant before the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Trembulak introduced Mr. Florek to review the revisions to the plans.
Mr. Florek reviewed the revised plans for the Board and noted the changes to respond to the initial comments of the HPC. He stated that he will reside in the dwelling and noted that the current condition of the dwelling is poor. He also noted that the existing second floor has a very low ceiling height and is limited in use.
Mr. Florek noted that he would comply with all comments provided in the second report by the HPC.
The Board asked if the dwelling could be reduced in height as requested by the Commission, noting that the dwelling would have to reduce by 3 feet. Mr. Florek stated that the height of the dwelling could be reduced at least one foot and noted that the plans would need to be changed.
Questions and comments from the public were then accepted.
Kathleen Bennett, representing the Historic Preservation Commission, stated that the Commission found that the ceiling heights as presented were not consistent and should be amended based on the comment provided to the Board.
Priscilla Eshelman, 50 Label Street, address the applicant and the Board. Ms. Eshelman introduced Exhibit O-2, a series of images of the existing and proposed conditions of the area and impacts to her dwelling adjacent the subject property. Ms. Eshelman stated that the proposed dwelling would impact the light, air and open space of her property should the application be approved. She also stated that the existing lot is non-conforming, and that approval of the variance relief being sought would be detrimental the public.
Mr. Florek responded to the comments and noted that he has met with Ms. Eshelman to discuss the proposed dwelling. He stated that the current condition of the dwelling is poor and requires improvements to make it livable. He noted that the plans have been extensively revised since the first hearing and the dwelling has been reduced in height and size.
Mr. Trembulak summarized the application for the Board. He noted that the lot on which the dwelling is locate dis only 24 feet in width, where a minimum of 60 feet is required. He stated that the only way to expand the dwelling is to build over the existing footprint as all the existing yards are non-conforming. He stated that the addition is only 600 sq. ft. in size over the existing dwelling size. He stated that the variance relief could be justified under c(1) and c(2) criteria.
The Board discussed the application. Members agreed that the subject property is very small and difficult to further develop given the small size. Some members, however, believed that the proposed dwelling would be too tall and too close to the adjacent dwelling at 50 Label Street and expressed concern. The Board noted appreciation for the changes to the plans completed by the applicant and the work the applicant has done to meet the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission. The Board noted that the proposed third story addition was too much for the dwelling and the side yard setback along the eastern shared property line adjacent to 50 Label Street was very close.
A motion was Mr. Fleischer made to approve the variances of the front yard setback, side yard setback from the western property line, the rear yard setback, the maximum building width and the accessory structure side yard setback and to deny the third story variance and the side yard setback from the eastern property line, seconded by Mr. Allen with conditions 1 through 11 of the Historic Preservation Commission report of December 10, 2019 and that the applicant maintain a six foot side yard setback from the eastern property line. The motion was approved unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS – (MULTIFAMILY & COMMERCIAL)
App. 2639: 360 Orange Road – DH Development, LLC. Site plan approval for new four family dwelling in the R-1 One Family Zone.
The Board introduced the application. Present for the application was David Owen, attorney for the applicant.
Mr. Owen summarized the previous proceedings on the application for the Board. He noted the Board’s prior use variance approval to permit four dwelling units in one building on the site and that the applicant has returned for site plan approval as required by this prior use variance approval.
Mr. Owen introduced Joseph Haines, applicant, to testify. Mr. Haines reviewed the proposed and the comments of the Planning Department report on the application. Mr. Haines introduced Exhibit A-8, a presentation color version of the proposed site plan. Mr. Haines reviewed the exhibit and noted the fence changes, the 12-foot light pole locations and the adjustment of the light poles to be 10 feet from all planted trees. Mr. Haines also stated that he would comply with all comments from the Board engineer.
The Board asked bout the proposed fencing, which would be adjacent to fencing on the neighboring property. The Board asked if evergreen plantings could be used instead. Mr. Haines replied yes.
The Board asked about trash removal from the site. Mr. Haines stated that it could be by private hauler or municipal collection from the curb. The Board expressed concern about curb collection due to the long distance from the enclosure to the street. The Board also noted that a rear door should be added to the trash enclosure.
No questions from the public were offered.
Mr. Owen then introduced Carol Hornline, engineer for the applicant. Ms. Hornline reviewed the engineer’s report and noted that the drainage has been modified to comply with the Board engineer’s comments. She also noted that native plantings will be used and that the lighting plan has been modified as recommended.
The Board asked about the location of the proposed drainage system in the front yard and if it could be located beneath the driveway to limit disturbance. Ms. Hornline replied yes that it could possibly be relocated. The Board also asked the engineer to review the outfall location of the drainage and to protect the front yard tree.
No questions from the public were offered.
Mr. Owen then introduced Peter Steck, professional planner for the applicant, to testify. Mr. Steck reviewed the site plan application for the Board and the changes. He noted that many aspects of the site plan comply with requirements of the ordinance and reviewed the negative criteria for the Board. Mr. Steck stated that the application could be approved by the Board.
No questions from the public were offered.
Mr. Owen then summarized the application for the Board. He stated that the site plan has been revised in response to the Board’s comments and use variance approval. He stated that applicant agrees to the planning and engineering comments and will incorporate other changes as requested by the Board including the evergreen plantings and second door to the trash enclosure.
The Board discussed the site plan and expressed support for the proposed plan for the site and the new multifamily dwelling. The Board discussed the conditions of any approval as follows:
-
The applicant shall comply with and satisfy comments 1, 2, 7 through 18 contained in the December 16, 2019 report issued by Joseph R. Vuich, PE, PP, CME, Board Engineer.
-
The applicant shall comply with and satisfy comments 1, 4, 5 and 6 contained in the December 10, 2019 memorandum prepared by Graham Petto, PP/AICP, Assistant Planner. With respect to comment 4, the applicant shall replace any trees that were intended to be preserved and die within two years of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
-
The applicant shall conform to Exhibit A-8 except that (a) landscaping shall be installed in lieu of the proposed fence to screen the entire northerly side of the parking area; (b) no fence shall be required where there is an existing fence on an adjacent property and hedges shall conform to the screening requirements of the site plan ordinance and (c) the applicant shall take precautions to minimize the impacts of the stormwater system on nearby trees.
-
The applicant shall be bound by all representations made on its behalf by its attorney and professionals during the course of the public hearings.
-
The applicant shall be responsible for all inspection fees required under Montclair Code Section 202-27 as well as escrow fees incurred in connection with review of this matter.
A motion was made by Mr. Fleischer, seconded by Mr. Church to approve the application with the conditions as stated. The motion was approved unanimously.
App. 2653: 80 Maple Avenue – 80 Maple Studios, LLC. Use variance and site plan approval for video production studio in the R-2 Two Family Zone.
The Board introduced the application. Present for the application was David Owen, attorney for the applicant.
Mr. Owen introduced the application to the Board for a proposed video recording studio use at the site. Mr. Owen introduced Sean Looney, applicant of 80 Maple Studios, LLC.
Mr. Looney reviewed the proposed use for the Board of a production studio. He stated that the existing building has tall 14-foot ceilings and is a good space to locate the video production studio for filming commercial and other recorded content.
Mr. Looney introduced the following exhibits for the Board’s review:
-
Exhibit A-1: a photo of the current interior of the building
-
Exhibit A-2: a photo of an example production studio space
-
Exhibit A-3: a rendering of the proposed elevation of the rehabilitated exterior of the subject property.
-
Exhibit A-4: a rendering of the proposed elevation of the rehabilitated exterior of the subject property
-
Exhibit A-5: a rendering of the proposed elevation of the rehabilitated exterior of the subject property
Mr. Looney noted that the building would be improved with additional windows and soundproofing as well as lighting and fencing around the parking area. He noted that the production studio would operate between 8am and 8pm, Monday through Friday and on limited weekends between 10am and 6pm. He stated that types of production include print/photography and mostly video production. He stated that most often there will be production crews of 8 people and stated that the 15 on-site parking spaces would be enough.
The Board questioned Mr. Looney, asking about the use of the parking area or outdoor space. Mr. Looney stated that there will be no outdoor recording on the site but noted that use of the space may be donated to nearby schools or other groups to learn about video production.
The Board asked about the new windows and impact of light on the video production. Mr. Looney stated that the lighting could be controlled and noted that additional transparency is beneficial to have access to light and increase the openness of the space. He stated that shades will be available.
The Board expressed concern about the height of the fence along the parking area adjacent to the sidewalk along Maple Avenue. Mr. Looney stated it could be lowered.
The Board asked about the hours of other businesses in the immediate area. Mr. Looney reviewed the other businesses for the Board.
The Board asked about event use of the space. Mr. Looney stated that the intention was to be a good neighbor and not negatively impact the area with outside events. He stated that the intent of the application is to use it for the video production use.
No questions from the public were offered.
Mr. Owen introduced Paul Anderson, engineer for the applicant, to testify. Mr. Anderson reviewed the site in detail for the Board. Mr. Anderson noted that the lighting values can be adjusted and recalculated to comply with the requirements.
The Board questioned Mr. Anderson. The Board asked about the proposed trash enclosure abutting the rear property line and stated that it should comply with the required setback for accessory structures. The Board asked if the parking area would be milled and repaved and would protect the tree roots. Mr. Anderson replied yes. The Board asked if the street tree would be replaced. Mr. Anderson replied yes.
No questions from the public were offered.
Mr. Owen then introduced Peter Steck, professional planner for the applicant, to testify. Mr. Steck reviewed the site plan application for the Board. Mr. Steck submitted Exhibit A-6 a handout summarizing the planning considerations of the area and site. Mr. Steck reviewed the history of the site which has been used for storage and other commercial uses in its history. He stated that the proposed use is a boutique studio use with limited movement on and off the site. He stated that the site will require some environmental cleanup as part of the application and overall would be an improvement for the neighborhood.
The Board asked about the parking requirement for the proposed use and if the ordinance has a comparable standard requirement to consider. Mr. Steck replied no noting that the use is unique and that the proposed parking will be enough as testified by the applicant.
Mr. Owen then summarize the application for the Board, noting that the proposed use is quiet and will improve the condition of the site with windows, planters and streetscaping. He also noted that the applicant can comply with all recommendations of the Board engineer.
The Board discussed the application and was generally in favor of the application with the proposed trash enclosure moved to comply with the required setback. The Board reviewed the conditions of any approval:
-
The applicant’s hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm, Saturday from 9:00 am to 8:00 pm, and Sunday from 10 am to 6 pm;
-
The applicant’s production studio shall be limited to the interior of the building;
-
The fence along the front property line shall be limited to 4.5 feet in height;
-
The applicant shall comply with planning considerations 3 and 5 set forth in the Planning Department’s report dated December 10, 2019;
-
The applicant shall place compact parking space signage as required by the site plan ordinance;
-
The applicant shall install wheel stops;
-
The applicant shall adjust the lighting plan to conform to the requirements of the site plan ordinance;
-
The HVAC location shall conform to the ordinance;
-
Any trash enclosure shall conform to the ordinance;
-
The applicant shall be bound by its own representations as well as those made on its behalf by its attorney and professionals during the course of the public hearing; and
-
The applicant shall be responsible for escrow fees and inspection fees under Montclair Code Section 202-27.
A motion was made by Mr. Fleischer, seconded by Mr. Allen to approve the application with the conditions as stated. The motion was approved unanimously.
App. 2655: 369-373 Bloomfield Avenue – Lightshade Labs Montclair, LLC. Appeal of administrative decision to locate medical marijuana facility in the C-1 Central Business Zone.
Mr. Petto announced that the applicant has requested to postpone the application pending before the Board to the February 19, 2020 meeting.
App. 2662: 27 Orange Road – 27 Orange Road, LLC. Appeal of administrative decision regarding removal of abandoned sign at property.
The Board introduced the application. Present for the application was Michael Rubin, attorney for the applicant.
Mr. Rubin reviewed the appeal for the Board. He noted that the applicant is appealing the determination that the sign has been abandoned. Mr. Rubin introduced the owner Tom Mesce to testify.
Mr. Mesce reviewed the history of the property for the Board. He purchased the property in 1999 and intended to use the property for his plumbing business. He noted that previously an auto shop was located at the site and the sign panel in the free-standing sign was removed. He stated that the site is contaminated and has a monitoring well located in the driveway/parking area between the building and the street. He stated that he had been advised that the site may need to be dug up for remediation.
Mr. Mesce submitted Exhibit A-1, a photo of the sign structure and Exhibit A-2, a series of invoices for work performed on the free-standing sign. He stated that the recent construction of the adjacent hotel has prevented him from using the free-standing sign as it would have been damaged by the construction. He stated that now that the construction has been completed, he intends to install a new sign panel. Mr. Mesce submitted Exhibit A-3, a rendering of the proposed sign prepared by architect Casey Sherman.
The Board discussed the appeal. The Board noted that the applicant has made repairs to the sign structure and noted that the sign has been empty for several years. The Board stated that the sign panel should be installed as presented to establish use of the sign structure.
A motion was made by Mr. Fleischer, seconded by Mr. Allen to reverse the determination finding the nonconforming sign structure has been abandoned. The motion was approved unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion to adjourn was offered by Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. Caulfield. The meeting was adjourned at 12:40am, Thursday December 19, 2019.