Planning Board

MINUTES PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MADISON REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2018 A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Borough of Madison was held on the 19th day of June 2018 at 7:40 P.M., in the Court Room, Hartley Dodge Memorial, 50 Kings Road, Madison, NJ. The meeting was called to order by Planning Board Chairman, Steve Tombalakian. Mr. Tombalakian requested the reading of the Public Meeting Notice. Ms. Boardman read the following statement in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. “Let the minutes reflect that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided in the following manner: At the reorganization meeting of the Board held on January 16, 2018, the Board by Resolution adopted a schedule of meetings. On January 17, 2018, a copy of the schedule of meetings will be posted at the bulletin board at the entrance to the Hartley Dodge Memorial, sent to the Madison Eagle and the Daily Record, and filed with the Borough Clerk all in accordance with the “Open Public Meetings Act”. The following roll call was recorded: Present: Mayor Robert Conley, Astri Baillie, Peter Flemming, Steve Tombalakian, Tom Lewis, George Limbach, John Forte and Ann Huber Excused: Rachel Ehrlich Also Present: Frank Russo, Assistant Borough Engineer Susan Blickstein, Board Planner Vince Loughlin, Planning Board Attorney Frances Boardman, Board Secretary Approval of Minutes: Copies of the minutes of the June 5, 2018 regular meeting and executive meeting were distributed to all Board members for their review prior to this meeting. A motion to approve the regular minutes as presented was made by Ms. Baillie, seconded by Mr. Flemming. A voice vote of “Aye” was heard by all eligible Board members and recorded. A motion to approve the executive minutes as presented was made by Mr. Lewis seconded by Ms. Baillie. A voice vote of “Aye” was heard by all eligible Board members and recorded. Comments by the Public: Mr. Tombalakian opened the floor to the public for anyone that wished to be heard on any matter not on this evening’s agenda. Seeing no one he closed that portion of the meeting. RESOLUTIONS FOR MEMORIALIZATION – None NEW BUSINESS – None OLD BUSINESS – CASE NO. P 18-003 Preliminary and Final Site Plan with Variances Fairleigh Dickinson University 285 Madison Avenue Block: 101, Lot: 6 A transcript of this evening’s meeting is being prepared by Candice Carucci of Laura Carucci, LLC Mr. Jason Tuvel, Attorney for the applicant advised the Board and members of the public present that this is a continued hearing for Fairleigh Dickinson University, 285 Madison Avenue, Block: 101, Lot: 6. Mr. Tuvel stated that revised landscape plans were submitted however; there is no narrative or textual arborist report. The witnesses here to testify this evening include the Landscape Architect, Mr. Sproles present at the last hearing, and Planner Mr. Keenan Hughes. 1 Planning Board June 19, 2018 Mr. Tombalakian asked the Board’s professionals if they had any questions for Mr. Sproles regarding the revised landscape plan submitted. Neither professional had any questions at this time. Mr. Tombalakian asked the Board if they had any questions for Mr. Sproles. Mr. Limbach suggested that Norway spruce be considered instead of the Fraser fir. Mr. Sproles stated that if the Board would like to recommend that change to the plan as a condition of approval, they would be fine with that change. Mr. Tombalakian asked if the Board had any further questions for Mr. Sproles at this time, seeing none he opened the floor to the public for questions of Mr. Sproles. Virginia Hicks, 61 Shadylawn Drive, Madison having been previously sworn in continues to testify. Mrs. Hicks presented two photographs of trees taken along Madison Avenue. The following photos were marked into evidence: Exhibit H-4: Madison Avenue Arborvitaes and Deciduous trees Exhibit H-5: Tree Removal Plan submitted by FDU Mrs. Hicks asked if the arborvitaes were counted as trees on the new landscape plan. Mr. Sproles answered that the arborvitaes and deciduous trees shown as a hedge on the plan would be removed. Mrs. Hicks asked about the buffering along Madison Avenue, Mr. Sproles answered that he is not aware of any requirement for buffering on Madison Avenue. Maryann Vigotov, 73 Shadylawn Drive, Madison having been previously sworn in continues to testify as follows. The following photo was marked into evidence: Exhibit V-1: Rear Yard of 73 Shadylawn Drive Mrs. Vigotov asked how the noise will be abated. Mr. Tuvel answered that the applicant is obligated to comply with any and all DEP regulations in connection with noise. The applicant will also need to comply with any and all local noise ordinances. Alina Merryweather, 71 Shadylawn Drive, Madison. Mr. Loughlin asked if the witness had previously been sworn in, since she had not Mr. Loughlin swore in the witness. Mrs. Merryweather asked who would be responsible for the care and up keep of the berm. Mr. Tuvel stated that a Maintenance Bond would be submitted by the applicant in compliance with the resolution if it is approved by the Board. This Maintenance Bond would be in effect for two years, but FDU will be bound to keep the landscaping and infrastructure that’s approved maintained in the condition in which it is approved. Nicole Tokuyama, 55 Shadylawn Drive, Madison. Mrs. Tokuyama questioned the water runoff towards the residents of Shadylawn Drive. Mr. Sproles replied that the plans show a storm water swale and inlets on both sides of the proposed berm. Mr. Sproles stated that he is confident that the storm water is going to be much improved on the site as well as for the Shadylawn Residents. Mr. Tombalakian asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Sproles, seeing none that portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Tuvel called his next witness professional planner, Keenan Hughes. Mr. Hughes from Phillips, Preiss, Grygiel, Leheny and Hughes, 33-41 Newark Street, 3rd Floor, Suite D, Hoboken, New Jersey was sworn in. Mr. Hughes gave his qualifications to the Board and was accepted as an expert witness. Mr. Hughes confirmed that he had visited the site, reviewed all plans and memorandums and has listened to all testimony. Mr. Hughes began by giving an overview from a planning perspective. Mr. Hughes commented that this portion of the campus is in need of enhancement. Mr. Hughes reiterated the proposal in front of the Board, pointing out the replacement of the current soccer field with a multipurpose field and eight-lane track, additional field events proposed for the westerly portion of the property and a sign which is proposed along the Madison Avenue frontage. Significant landscaping is being proposed as part of a new berm which would separate the field from Shadylawn Drive. Mr. Hughes began to outline the zoning compliance in the University District. 2 Planning Board June 19, 2018 Mr. Hughes explained the extensive uses in the University Zone to emphasize the broad range of potential uses that are permitted within the University Zone. FDU’s land resources are predominantly built out and this is a very logical development site for the University. Mr. Hughes also went over the bulk requirements for this zone as well. He emphasized the 50-foot setback requirement from the residential property line. Mr. Hughes stated that the variance relief being sought is relatively minimal and is intended to advance three overall benefits to the community. The project will enhance the aesthetics along Madison Avenue, substantially enhance the vegetative buffer separating the existing field site from the residences along Shadylawn Drive and promote the general welfare by ensuring adequate safeguards to protect students and other users of the athletic field. Mr. Hughes discussed each variance at length. At this point the following Exhibits were marked into evidence. Exhibit A-19: Hammer/Discus Cage and Ball Stopper Netting Exhibit A-20: Rendering of Proposed Scoreboard Exhibit A-21: Athletic Fields, Dated June 5, 2018 Mr. Tuvel asked Mr. Hughes to address the negative criteria with respect to the wall variance. Mr. Hughes stated that from his perspective there certainly is no substantial detrimental impact from the proposed 2 feet wall variance along the Madison Avenue frontage. Mr. Hughes continued with the variance from the zoning ordinance for the ball stopper netting. The netting is quite transparent in terms of visual impact and the purpose is to prevent potential conflicts between activities occurring on the multipurpose field and athletes on the track. This ball stopper netting is approximately 143 feet from the residential property line, due to the distance from the residences, the proposed berm and substantial vegetation there are not any significant visual impacts. Mr. Hughes then moved on to the proposed scoreboard. The scoreboard is necessary in terms of enhancing FDU’s competitiveness as a Division III athletic program, this type of scoreboard with the video display screen is really industry standard at this point. The same scoreboard exists at the Teaneck campus. This scoreboard requires a variance for accessory structure height. The height of the proposed scoreboard is 26 feet 9 inches where 15 feet is required. The scoreboard is approximately 607 feet from the nearest residential property line. The proposed scoreboard is in the same general location as the existing scoreboard. The scoreboard is internal to the property and is oriented to the field and the stands. There is no substantial detrimental impact to the public good. The variance relief sought for the proposed signage along Madison Avenue was discussed. Mr. Hughes stated that the proposed sign is located near the eastern most corner of the property along Madison Avenue. The relief being sought is needed for both size and height of the sign. The materials and aesthetics are in keeping with the overall historic character of the campus. The sign is a masonry monument and will promote a welcoming gateway along Madison Avenue. The sign is consistent with the overall streetscape improvement and enhance this edge of FDU’s campus. There will be ground –mounted lighting, with no potential glare or spillage. Mr. Hughes stated that these variances for the sign will promote a desirable, visual environment and provide appropriate visibility to the campus. Dr. Blickstein asked if the sign has to be ten feet to accomplish this, what if the sign were eight feet in height wouldn’t that still promote a desirable, visual environment. Mr. Hughes stated that it would. Dr. Blickstein questioned Mr. Hughes with respect to the steep slope variance. Mr. Hughes explained that every effort was made to focus impacts within the existing developed area. These impacts will actually serve to improve the drainage in the area. At this point Mr. Hughes had no further testimony. The Planning Board began asking questions of Mr. Hughes. Mr. Tombalakian referring to Dr. Blickstein’s memorandum dated June 14, 2018 questioned the submission waiver for an Environmental Impact Study. Mr. Hughes was asked to provide planning testimony to support this request. Mr. Hughes’s perspective as a planner was that this application for an athletic field did not merit a full environmental impact study. The application has included extensive background information in terms of tree removal, proposed landscaping and other improvements to the site. Mr. Russo asked for the height of the existing fence along Madison Avenue and whether or not that height includes the barbed wire on top. Mr. Hughes stated that according to the engineer, the fence is 8 feet, inclusive of the barbed wire. Planning Board June 19, 2018 3 Planning Board June 19, 2018 Dr. Blickstein and Mr. Hughes discussed the proposed sign at length. After some discussion Mr. Hughes stated that there may be some flexibility in terms of the height of the sign. It was agreed upon that eight feet was appropriate for the sign along Madison Avenue. Mr. Flemming asked how many feet from the property along Madison Avenue does the monument sign begin. Mr. Hughes replied that the sign is approximately 30 feet from this property along Madison Avenue. Mr. Flemming inquired if the applicant would consider moving the monument sign 50 feet from the property along Madison Avenue, giving the same buffer as the residents along Shadylawn Drive. Mr. Hughes stated that this will be taken under advisement and discussed with the client. Mayor Conley questioned potential development in the remaining wooded area. Mr. Hughes replied that he was not asked to investigate the development intention of that portion of the property, but to the extent that steep slopes exist it is a constraint. Dr. Blickstein inquired as to how the parking requirement was calculated. Mr. Hughes sited Section 195-35, Off Street Parking requirements for nonresidential uses. The requirement for parking is geared towards the number of students and there is no proposed increase in student population with this application. Mr. Hughes stated that there is no parking required for this proposed improvement to the property. Mr. Hughes stated that a calculation was run and showed on the plans under a different category, which is outdoor recreation, which requires one space per 150 square feet of assemblage space. The site plan shows the existing and proposed seating for the athletic field (soccer field bleachers, as well as existing baseball bleachers) result in a total area of 1,233 square feet which is divided by 150 per the requirement and that is 8 parking spaces, where there are 20 total parking spaces provided in this area of the property. Mrs. Huber asked if the track were to be moved 20 to 30 feet west would the impact on the steep slopes be any greater. Mr. Hughes stated that he had not investigated how that would impact the steep slopes. A five minute break was taken at 8:55pm. At 9:08pm the Board resumed the hearing with all members present. At this time Mr. Tombalakian opened the floor to the public for questions of Mr. Hughes. Mr. John Hicks, 61 Shadylawn Drive, Madison, asked Mr. Hughes if he was familiar with the parking requirements of the athletic fields at FDU Florham Park. Mr. Hughes replied no. Questioning continued, Mr. Tuvel stated for the record that a parking variance is not being sought and that based on population the applicant complies. Mr. Hicks asked if the project would result in an increased need for public services. Mr. Hughes stated that from a planning standpoint this is a permitted use and this condition is not taken into consideration in evaluating the proposal and the variance relief that is being sought. Mr. Hicks asked if there are any plans for future additions, expansions or other activities related to or connected with this proposal. Mr. Tuvel answered that this application is geared towards this specific development. Any application in the future will come before the Planning Board. Alison Johansen, 63 Shadylawn Drive, Madison, asked Mr. Hughes to clarify how the berm with tree growth that is five to seven years down the road creating a better visual environment for Shadylawn Drive. Mr. Hughes replied that his testimony concludes that there is no substantial detrimental impact. Mrs. Johansen how this outdoor facility, which will be hosting track and field, men’s and women’s soccer, lacrosse and field hockey is a better visual than a dormitory. Mr. Hughes response was that there are other impacts to consider in terms of noise, light and other factors that may come with other uses on this site. Noise was again discussed at length. Mr. Tuvel again stated that the testimony of Mr. Hughes relates to variance relief that is being sought. And that all noise ordinances will be adhered to. Jennifer Vasquez, 75 Shadylawn Drive, Madison inquired about the steep slopes and if the proposed site could be moved another 100 feet back. Mr. Tombalakian answered that this was a question for the site engineer who designed the site. Mr. Tombalakian stated that the planner provided the rationales for the variances this evening. Mr. Tuvel, the applicant’s attorney jumped in at this point and stated that the applicant is not moving the track another 50 to 100 feet. The setback requirement is being complied with. 4 Planning Board June 19, 2018 Mr. Russo asked if it would be appropriate to bring back the engineer. Mr. Tuvel stated that Mr. Smith could be brought back for questions if there is a specific question. Mr. Tombalakian stated that there is a steep slope issue that could be clarified. Mr. Tuvel stated that once Mr. Hughes is finished he would be happy to bring back Mr. Smith. Alina Merryweather, 71 Shadylawn Drive, Madison inquired on the findings of Mr. Hughes site visit and the variation of height of the stacks placed where the berm is intended, compared to the residents’ backyards of Shadylawn Drive. Mr. Hughes stated that there is a variation in height of the intended berm. Mr. Hughes also replied that extensive testimony had been provided by the landscape architect and that further questions should be directed to Mr. Sproles. Mrs. Merryweather continued her questioning of Mr. Hughes. Mrs. Merryweather asked if the photo of proposed scoreboard included a jumbotron screen. Mr. Hughes answered yes. Virginia Hicks, 61 Shadylawn Drive, Madison, questioned the landscape renderings and the proposed plantings. Mr. Tuvel explained that the applicant must plant exactly what is on the landscape plan submitted to the Board. Alina Merryweather, 71 Shadylawn Drive, Madison, questioned the draining proposed at the site. Mr. Tuvel answered that the storm water design will need to comply with the plan submitted. Mr. Russo, Assistant Borough Engineer explained that an operation-and-maintenance manual is required to be provided by the applicant. MaryAnn Vigotov, 73 Shadylawn Drive, Madison asked where the Monmouth University scoreboard faces. Mr. Hughes replied that the scoreboard is oriented to the football field. Mrs. Vigotov asked if any complaints were filed about the condition of the existing fence. Mr. Hughes replied that he is not aware of any complaints regarding the condition of the fence. Again the question of the existing scoreboard height was discussed. Alison Johansen, 63 Shadylawn Drive, Madison asked Mr. Hughes if he had ever had a discussion with the engineer about the placement of the multipurpose field and the incompatibility with the residential zone. Mr. Hughes simply stated that his role as a planner was to evaluate the overall application with a focus on the variances relief that’s being requested. James Backman, 27 Shadylawn Drive, Madison questioned the concave shape of the sign along Madison Avenue and the ground lighting. Mr. Hughes using Exhibit A-21 showed the plan view of the proposed sign showing the concave shape. Dr. Blickstein explained that the Borough Ordinance states that lighting for this signage is contained within the sign area portion of the block wall. Mr. Tuvel stated that the applicant will comply with the Ordinance. Jairo Rodriguez, 245 Madison Avenue, Madison asked if the 50 foot buffer from Shadylawn Drive could be considered for the property on Madison Avenue instead of the 35 foot buffer being proposed. Mr. Tombalakian acknowledged that the applicant’s engineer would be called back for additional questions. Mr. Tombalakian asked if there were any further questions from the public for Mr. Hughes, seeing none that portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Tuvel asked for a two minute recess at this time. A two minute break was taken at 10:01pm. At 10:07pm the hearing resumed with all Board members present. The site engineer, Mr. Michael Smith previously sworn was recalled to testify. Mr. Tombalakian asked Mr. Smith to explain why the project cannot be moved further away from the residents on Shadylawn. Mr. Smith explained that the location of the field is based on the ability to maximize the use of the existing level playing surface. The applicant is trying to take advantage of the existing topography and minimize the amount of cut, fill and earthwork movement that needs to be done. If the site is moved it will further encroach on the steep slopes. Mr. Tombalakian asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Smith. Mr. Flemming asked if the applicant was firm on an eight lane track. Mr. Tuvel stated that it had been testified to that the majority of University’s within the conference have an eight-lane track. Ms. Baillie asked Mr. Smith how much chasing of the grade would there be if the track was moved 10 feet. Mr. Smith stated that he could not answer that, because he had not engineered those maneuvers. But based on experience there will be additional impacts. Mr. Russo asked if there were any proposed egress changes to the turning movements, on the westerly side of the property. Mr. Tuvel stated that issue was discussed at TCC and the applicant is willing to work with Mr. Russo and the Board regarding the turning movements there. Dr. Blickstein questioned how critical the decorative elements are to the scoreboard. Mr. Tuvel stated he did not have an answer at this time on how the scoreboard could be modified. 5 Planning Board June 19, 2018 Mr. Tombalakian asked the Board and its Professionals if they had any further questions for Mr. Smith seeing none he opened the floor for questions from the public. Seeing none that portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Tombalakian asked Mr. Tuvel if he had anything further, however; in light of the hiring of a Planner by Mr. & Mrs. Hick of Shadylawn Drive he would like to reserve the right to either rebut her testimony or provide additional information based on the comments made by the Board and the public. Mr. Tombalakian assured the public they would be able to comment. Mr. Tombalakian asked Ms. Caldwell to come forward. Ms. Jessica Caldwell, 145 Spring Street, Suite E, Newton, New Jersey was sworn in. Ms. Caldwell provided her qualifications and accepted as an expert witness. Ms. Caldwell stated that she was hired to provide a planning review of the variances requested and the application proposed. Ms. Caldwell started out by citing case law that she believes is applicable to this application. One of Ms. Caldwell’s concerns regarding the application is that this is a 30-acre parcel and the applicant has chosen to push this proposal as close as possible to the adjacent residential neighborhood and the only reasoning for that is that there is a 50-foot setback. It was noted that a grant of approval must actually benefit the community. She cited Section 195-24.6 regarding buffering. She stated that additional buffering should be offered to the adjacent residential neighbors. In terms of impact there will be substantial determent to the neighborhood and the public good from crowds, noise, and an increase of activity on the site. It was also stated that the distance of this field from the residential neighborhood needs to be increased in order to minimize negative impacts. With respect to the benefit of the University and the modernizing of their fields there is no benefit to the public good just the University. Ms. Caldwell noted that the size and height of the sign and the scoreboard again do not promote a benefit to the public good and could easily be minimized. Ms. Caldwell found it very concerning that in terms of the overall layout the applicant had not looked at any other alternative. Ms. Caldwell also pointed out that other uses for this site would not have a greater impact within the University Zone. At this time Ms. Caldwell stated that she had covered most of her points on this application and would be happy to take questions at this time. Mr. Tombalakian opened the floor for questions from the Board or its professionals. Seeing none he asked Mr. Tuvel if he had any questions for Ms. Caldwell. Mr. Tuvel began his cross examination of Ms. Caldwell. Mr. Tuvel asked if anywhere in the Ordinance does it require a 50-foot buffer in the University Zone be extended. Ms. Caldwell answered no. Mr. Tuvel asked if Ms. Caldwell was a landscape architect again Ms. Caldwell answered no. Mr. Tuvel pointed out that Ms. Cardwell indicated that the only benefit given by the applicant’s planner were self-serving benefits, but did the applicant not provide testimony regarding safety and desirable visual impacts of the proposal. Ms. Caldwell stated that there is no safety issue that is addressed, they create the safety issue and then answer it and it becomes a public benefit. Discussion continued between Mr. Tuvel and Ms. Caldwell. At this point Mr. Tuvel stated that all variance criteria in our testimony have been addressed. Mr. Tombalakian asked the members of the public if they had any questions for Ms. Caldwell, seeing none he thanked Ms. Caldwell for her testimony. Given the late hour, scheduling was discussed for the continuation of this application to allow for public comment and any rebuttal from Mr. Tuvel. The next regular meeting of the Board is July 17, 2018. Mr. Tuvel stated that the Planner and he were not available for the July 17, 2018 meeting. Mr. Tuvel asked if the Board would entertain a special meeting in July. Dr. Blickstein stated that would be tough. Ms. Boardman stated that she would need to check on room availability. Mr. Tombalakian stated that if a special meeting is scheduled Mr. Tuvel would need to notice for that meeting. It was decided that the hearing for this application would be carried to the July 17, 2018 regular meeting for scheduling purposes only. Mr. Tombalakian explained to the public that this case is being carried to the July 17, 2018 Planning Board meeting for scheduling purposes only. At that time, a date will be announced for the continuation of this application before the Planning Board. The chairman explained that this will be reserved for public comment only. Mr. Loughlin asked does the applicant continue the stipulation of the Board’s time to act. Mr. Tuvel said, yes of course. Ms. Boardman reminded Mr. Tuvel that if a special meeting is requested the fee for such meeting is $1,500.00 PLANNING DISCUSSION –  Outdoor Dining  Residential Infill Development 6 Planning Board June 19, 2018 It was determined that these topics will be placed on the July 17, 2018 Planning Board agenda for continued discussion. CORRESPONDENCE – None Since there was no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Tombalakian asked for a motion to adjourn the regular meeting at 10: 55 pm.; motion was made by Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mayor Conley. A voice vote of “aye” was heard by all members present and carried. Respectfully submitted, Frances Boardman Board Secretary 7