MINUTES - ZONING BOARD
March 10, 2014
The workshop portion of the meeting was called to order at 8:04 P.M. by Mr. Marotta,
Chairman.
RESOLUTIONS OF MEMORIALIZATION
1.
Applicant #Z37-13:
Shayne Temple, Applicant
20 Windsor Place, Block 253, Lot 4, R-3 Zone
To permit construction of a new stoop and steps that will extend into
the minimum required front yard setback (§136-31D(3).
The Resolution of Memorialization approving the application (attached and made part of
these minutes) as amended was reviewed by the Board. After discussion, a motion to
approve the resolution was made by Mr. Bovasso, seconded by Mr. Pistol and passed
with the following voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Pistol, Ms. Hay, Mr. Bovasso, Mr.
Higgins, Mr. Ruane and Mr. Mallon.
2.
Applicant #Z38-13:
Timothy Okay, Applicant
119 New Street, Block 404, Lot 7.01 and R-5 Zone
To permit construction of a new stoop and steps that will extend into the
minimum required front yard setback (§136-31D(3).
The Resolution of Memorialization approving the application (attached and made part of
these minutes) as amended was reviewed by the Board. After discussion, a motion to
approve the resolution was made by Ms. Hay, seconded by Mr. Bovasso and passed
with the following voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Pistol, Ms. Hay, Mr. Bovasso, Mr.
Higgins, Mr. Ruane and Mr. Mallon.
3.
Applicant #Z44-13:
Jeremy & Jennifer Bernier, Applicants
101 Edgewood Road, Block 205, Lot 1, R-3 Zone
To permit construction of a new deck with less than the minimum
required distance to the rear yard lot lines (§136-34F(1)(a) and (b).
The Resolution of Memorialization approving the application (attached and made part of
these minutes) as amended was reviewed by the Board. After discussion, a motion to
approve the resolution was made by Mr. Pistol, seconded by Ms. Hay and passed with
the following voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Pistol, Ms. Hay, Mr. Bovasso, Mr.
Higgins, Mr. Ruane and Mr. Mallon.
4.
Applicant #Z46-13:
Zoning Board Meeting
March 10, 2014
Page 2
David & Debbie Drechsel, Applicants
20 Keith Jeffries Avenue, Block 437, Lot 31, R-4 Zone
To permit construction of a new and larger roof over an entrance
platform deck with the following variances: to extend into the
minimum required front yard setback and exceed the maximum
allowable square footage (§136-31D(6).
The Resolution of Memorialization approving the application (attached and made part of
these minutes) as amended was reviewed by the Board. After discussion, a motion to
approve the resolution was made by Mr. Higgins, seconded by Mr. Bovasso and passed
with the following voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Pistol, Ms. Hay, Mr. Bovasso, Mr.
Higgins, Mr. Ruane and Mr. Mallon.
5.
Applicant #Z43-13:
TJS, Inc., Applicant
331 Centennial Avenue, Block 527, Lot 2, ROI-2 Zone
To permit waiver from minor site plan approval to construct a new
second floor apartment over an existing building which is currently
occupied by office space and not permitted in the ROI-2 zone (§13632D(1) and NJSA 55D-70(d)(1).
The Resolution of Memorialization approving the application (attached and made part of
these minutes) as amended was reviewed by the Board. After discussion, a motion to
approve the resolution was made by Mr. Pistol, seconded by Ms. Hay and passed with
the following voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Pistol, Ms. Hay, Mr. Bovasso, Mr.
Higgins, Mr. Ruane and Mr. Mallon.
MINUTES:
Motion to adopt the minutes of February 24, 2014 (as amended) was made by Mr.
Pistol, seconded by Mr. Bovasso and passed by voice vote.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
The workshop portion of the meeting concluded at 8:08 P.M.
PUBLIC MEETING:
A public meeting of the Cranford Board of Adjustment was called to order by Mr.
Marotta on March 10, 2014 at 8:15 P.M. in Room 107 of the Municipal Building, 8
Springfield Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey. Mr. Marotta announced in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the Open Public Meetings Act, the Cranford Chronicle has
been notified and the agenda posted in the municipal building as required.
Zoning Board Meeting
March 10, 2014
Page 3
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Mr. Marotta
Mr. Pistol
Ms. Hay
Mr. Bovasso
Mr. Higgins
Mr. Howard
Mr. Montani
Members Absent:
None
Alternates Present:
Mr. Ruane
Mr. Mallon
Alternates Absent:
Also present: David Weeks, Esquire, Ruthanne Della Serra, Administrator and Robert
Hudak, Zoning Officer. Peter Van de Kooy, planner here for benefit of the ZB
Mr. Marotta explained the protocol, purpose and procedure that will be followed during
the hearing.
1.
Applicant #Z45-13:
Northgate @ Cranford Condominium Association, Applicant
215 Miln Street, Block 188, Lot 12, R-6 Zone
For amended site plan approval to permit construction of parking area with the
following variances: to exceed the maximum allowable impervious surface (§13630.13) and less than the minimum required setback for a parking area (§13623G(3)(c)[5])
Mark Dugan, Esquire appeared on behalf of the applicant. He explained the
condominium association has approved the application that is being made for the
benefit of two unit owners. Proposal consists of construction of two parking areas of
grass pavers to provide off street parking and to alleviate some parking congestion.
Received all the reports, only Engineering expressed concern with soil disturbance.
Don Villane, appeared and was sworn in. He explained he owns a unit #6 in
Northgate with one of the proposed driveway areas being requested for this unit. Has
reviewed the reports provided. With regard to Engineering Department’s memo dated
Zoning Board Meeting
March 10, 2014
Page 4
January 14, 2014 and reviewed the conditions recommended. Has no problem with
complying all recommendations and soil will be kept onsite. Has experienced parking
issues at the site even though each unit has garage space and an additional space.
However, visitors have no where to park and proposal is to alleviate off street parking.
Questions posed by members of the Board ascertained the following:
Confirmed one space will be seen from Miln Street as extension of the driveway itself,
the other will not. Area located next to the units is turn around area, proposal will be an
extension of the driveway as in other units.
There were no further questions by the Board.
Mr. Marotta opened the application to the public for questions of the witnesses with no
one appearing and this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter referred back
to the Board.
Mr. Marotta opened the application to the public for comments with no one appearing
and this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter referred back to the Board.
Richard Scott, appeared and was sworn in. Explained he is owner of unit #5 and also
requests Board approval for installation in front of his unit. Confirmed all of Mr. Villane’s
testimony.
Edward S. Dec, Guarriello & Dec, appeared and was sworn in. His credentials were
presented to the Board and he was accepted as an expert witness in the field of
professional engineer and land surveyor.
Drawing dated October 6, 2013 prepared by Dec & Guarriello. He explained 2nd page
depicts areas where two paver areas will be installed. Left side of sheet depicts existing
conditions, and on right is same area with paver area extended. Pavers will reduce the
impervious coverage, increase by approximately 1.29% and very minimal. Other
variance is side yard setback, 10 feet required and proposing 5 yard setback.
Application does not negatively affect master plan or zoning plan.
Questions posed by members of the Board ascertained the following:
Impervious increase is 372 square feet. Explained grass pavers proposed in depth,
looks like egg carton with holes on the bottom cut out and filled with stone, solid base
above soil for cars to park and allows run off to recharge into the soil.
There were no further questions by the Board.
Zoning Board Meeting
March 10, 2014
Page 5
Mr. Marotta opened the application to the public for questions of the witnesses with no
one appearing and this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter referred back
to the Board.
Mr. Marotta opened the application to the public for comments with no one appearing
and this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter referred back to the Board.
Mr. Dugan presented his closing statement, Fire report who was concerned with
vehicles parking in fire area, this is proposal to eliminate that concern. Adjacent
Property is another condominium complex, no impact to setback variance. Are no
negative elements and request the Board grant the application.
DELIBERATION of APPLICATION #Z45-13:
Applicant #Z45-13:
Northgate @ Cranford Condominium Association, Applicant
215 Miln Street, Block 188, Lot 12, R-6 Zone
For amended site plan approval to permit construction of parking area with
the following variances: to exceed the maximum allowable impervious
surface (§136-30.13) and less than the minimum required setback for a
parking area (§136-23G(3)(c)[5])
Mr. Marotta reviewed the testimony.
Board comments consisted of the following:
No negative impacts, positive benefits outweigh any negative. Professionals
were in support of proposal and no concerns expressed. Overriding factor is repeated
violations of parking in the fire zone, and additional spaces will benefit and outweigh
minor increase in impervious surface.
Motion to approve Application #Z45-13 was made by Mr. Bovasso, seconded by Mr.
Pistol with the following voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Marotta, Mr. Pistol, Ms. Hay,
Mr. Bovasso, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Howard and Mr. Montani.
2.
Applicant #Z41-13:
Frontier Developers, LLC, Applicant
345 North Avenue East, Block 318, Lot 20 and O-2 Zone
Site plan approval with the following variances: use variance to permit a
drive-thru restaurant (§136-32C(1); to exceed the maximum allowable
impervious surface (§136-30.13); less than the minimum required setback
for a parking area from the principal and accessory buildings (§13623G(3)(c)[5]; to exceed the maximum allowable wall signs (§13623H(4)(b)[3]; to exceed the maximum allowable area for free-standing signs
(§136-23H(4)(f)[2]; to permit internally illuminated freestanding sign where
not permitted (§136-23H(4)(f)[6]; to exceed the maximum allowable square
footage for directional signs with less than the minimum distance from the
property line (§136-23H(1)(e); to exceed the maximum allowable footcandles at the property lines (§136-23G(3)(j); accessory structure with less
than the minimum allowable distance to the side and rear lot lines (§13634A(3); and to exceed the allowable width, less than the allowable length,
and to extend the loading area into the front yard (§136-23G(4)(b).
Joseph Paparo, Esquire, Hehl & Hehl appeared on behalf of the applicant. He explained
application involves seeking site plan and variance approval. Property was previously a
gas station. Will remove all existing structure and replace with a drive-thru coffee shop
that is not permitted in the O-2 zone. New concept in Cranford.
Lizanne Kile, applicant, appeared and was sworn in. She is an employee of Starbucks
as store development manager, and job is to source potential stores. Is drive-thru only
and explained the overall operations. Large majority of locations are cafes with drivethru. Most patrons seek quick service stores, and Starbucks is seeking to marry a
drive-thru only with a neighboring store. Similar concepts on the east coast, none in
New Jersey, as this will be flag ship design. Starbucks recognizes differences between
cafe stores and drive-thru only stores. In this instance employees or store partners are
focused on filling orders only. Takes 1 minute 20 seconds to fill an order. General hours
will be 5:30 to 11. Building is 446 square feet and anticipates 3 or 4 employees per
shift. Deliveries are daily by box truck, 20 to 30 minutes to deliver conducted any time
after closing and before opening. Refuse pick-up is typically 3 times per week. The
building materials will consist of reclaimed wood and every store is LEED certified as
will this. Starbucks reuses and recycles all building materials, LED lights, etc. to obtain
LEED certification.
Exhibit A-1 is rendering of proposed store. Handout package marked as Exhibit A-1
and given to members of the Board. Depicts design and building materials at this
location. Mounted version of rendering marked as Exhibit A-2 and demonstrates the
materials referred to this evening. Signage package is mandated by the company, and
though-out the process it has been refined to eliminate as many variances as possible.
Questions posed by members of the Board ascertained the following:
Frontier Development has actually pursued the site, and is not part of the development
team. Starbucks is aware of shop across the street and will continue with the lease.
These types of facilities are generally located off major highways, on small parcels of
land and in communities such as Cranford. Prototype is depicted in exhibits and
Starbucks is proposing a flagship store and is their corporate direction. All design is a
wood exterior that fits into most communities and offers the most flexibility. Walk-up
window would not be possible at this site. Intent with lighting is to keep existing pole
lighting, with own lighting for the building, and internally lit signs. During the review
process changes were made in size, location etc. Reclaimed wood will be used for
exterior. Wall signs are artistic laser cut elements into metal on outside of the building
and is not lit from behind. In response to concern expressed by Board member that site
Zoning Board Meeting
March 10, 2014
Page 7
Is adjacent to Dairy Queen and concerned for pedestrian safety, in her experience is not
a pedestrian tract, has another store opening in the area that is targeted for
neighborhood and train traffic; corporately believe once this site is vehicle driven,
pedestrians will learn how to use this location. Typically stores are on highways and
usually not a lot of pedestrian traffic and it is not subject to pedestrian traffic as not open
for public access. Parking spaces are for employees only. Will serve the entire menu –
food and drinks. Members concern reiterated that pedestrians will attempt to gain
service with Ms. Kile advising there will be signs indicating drive-thru not “only” and
corporate would like to keep as such. Other sites located in Virginia Beach, Miami,
California and Atlanta and are very similar in design based on size of land and vary as
commuter driven. Feels very strongly about the prototype design and with landscaping
blends with municipal environments. Starbucks has conducted studies as to multiple
locations fitting into the community. Natural traffic going to and from the Parkway will be
their customers and confirmed no signage is permitted on the Parkway, Starbucks app
will provide locations to interested customers. This is brand new prototype and in area
where there is a cafe and believed good idea to pair the two.
There were no further questions by the Board.
Mr. Marotta opened the application to the public for questions of the witnesses with the
following appearing:
Ray Johnson, 14 Elizabeth Avenue. Question as to traffic access point for the drivethru only but should be addressed to traffic engineer and will be presented.
No one else appeared and this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter
referred back to the Board.
Keith Cahill, Boehler Engineering appeared and was sworn in. His credentials were
presented to the Board and he was accepted as an expert witness in the field of civil
engineering.
Exhibit A-3 – aerial view of the site, sheet 1 of 1 prepared by Boehler Engineering. This
site is located in O-2 zone on corner of Route 28 and Elizabeth Avenue. Existing
neighboring uses and zones explained. Site used to be a Shell station that has been
closed for many years; site is almost 96% impervious; site has been environmentally
cleaned with tanks and pumps removed and all contaminated soil removed however
groundwater contamination, although low level, is being monitored (next sampling is
2017). Remediation aspect is in compliance.
Project is to now redevelop the site. No active remediation required. 17 wells onsite
and all except for 6 will be closed out and anticipate redevelopment from existing
defunct state.
Zoning Board Meeting
March 10, 2014
Page 8
Referring to survey in package prepared by Control Point. Existing conditions on site
explained as: 1300 square foot building on west side of property, setback 5 feet from
westerly property line; is 12,714 square feet; 130 foot frontage and 150 feet along
Elizabeth Avenue; was a fully operational gas station with gold post monument sign;
shed onsite with trash enclosure 5 feet from property line; access through 4 points - two
off Elizabeth Avenue that are not in compliance with DOT standards and two off North
Avenue. Referring to Exhibit A-4, depicting existing street image, photos were obtained
thru Google Maps and approximately 5 years of age. Gas station needed four driveway
cuts for tractor trailer fuel deliveries. Exhibit A-5 consisting of 4 photos taken March 1,
2013 – top two are from Elizabeth Avenue – top left from Elizabeth Avenue in southwest
direction into the site, top right is due south along Elizabeth, bottom right is condition
today of site. Site has been sitting in this condition for quite some time.
With regard to setbacks of existing building and canopies, previous use had problems
meeting the ordinance requirements. Most will be eliminated with proposed
development:
Exhibit A-6 site plan colorized version of sheet 3 of 11 contained in package. Explained
pre-existing conditions that have been eliminated throughout the site. No different from
any other corner location throughout the community. Provided sidewalks internally on
site. In terms of signage to prevent pedestrian crossing - has not experienced issues at
other sites, but can include signage to prevent pedestrian traveling through-out the site.
Proposal is a 446 square foot building (24 X 23) and extremely small footprint. Makes
perfect sense to use on this undersized lot as fits nicely and eliminates all setback
nonconforming issues. In terms of permitted uses in office zone, bulk variances would
be created. Overall site – applicant has been able to reduce impervious surface
coverage and adds green space as well as reducing signage. Two access points will be
eliminated with proposed access located at farthest corner of intersection and
neighboring Dairy Queen driveway. Driveways will be full movement. Other access
point off of Elizabeth Avenue is pulled further from property line to the north and farthest
from the intersection also. From safety and circulation standpoint are ideal for this site.
Essentially counterclockwise direction with drive-thru and bypass lanes. 5 stalls
proposed, one of which is ADA for employees. With regard to separation from stalls to
building, only two affect with landscaping provided and only person walking thru at this
area would be employees. Proposal maximizes green space along North Avenue.
Drive-thru area will include 5 spaces for stacking. Window explained in depth. Drive
aisles allow for additional 5 vehicles to cue while providing circulation within the site.
The proposed layout provides safest onsite circulation. Met with the police department.
Does not anticipate Parkway traffic, rather cars coming into Cranford or towards the
Parkway at a 50/50 split.
Zoning Board Meeting
March 10, 2014
Page 9
The circulation is counterclockwise and one per day delivery that will be outside of the
normal operating hours by a single box truck. No longer a tractor trailer fuel deliveries.
Trash enclosure is located at northwest corner of site. Access points are away from the
residents. Truck turning exhibit marked as A-7 as requested by Traffic & Safety dated
December 2, 2013 by Boehler Engineering. Single unit vehicle circulation either to trash
enclosure or for delivery.
Setback is 31 feet off Elizabeth Avenue, rear yard setback is 2.7 feet. Storm water
management existing versus proposed explained in depth. This redevelopment will no
longer have motor vehicle repair collection. This application reduces volume of run off,
improving water quality thru rain space and is meeting recharge requirements. In
essence proposal is a vast improvement to existing. Adding landscaping with low plant
material. Proposing new lights onsite of 5 LED fixtures that are energy efficient.
Starbucks is very environmentally conscientious. Design has been revised to blend into
the area thru materials. Exceeds the 1.5 candle maximum at property line neighboring
residential; deviates along North Avenue driveway and exceeds the 1.5 foot candles as
need safe visibility.
Signage reviewed: freestanding sign A-1 on left side of exhibit - center is monument
sign that sits 5.8 in height with variance request as 4 foot sign permitted with proposed
required for logo medallion with name. Will be setback at 10 feet and is internally
illuminated. Is 2.1 feet wide versus what was onsite and is significant reduction. Not
anything overbearing in terms of size.
Building signage and proposing three signs – Starbucks coffee at 10 inches in height
and area; 2nd sign is word “drive-thru” identifying use and immediately next to it is 3rd
sign “Starbucks” medallion in terms of area are 7 square feet each and is allowable as
26 square feet total area - but exceeds in number. Drive thru signs would be more in
nature of directional signage and is important for customer to identify where the drive
thru is located and is non-promotional. Other deviation for a building mounted sign with
residential zone beyond as required to be 150 feet from residential zone, measured
from blade sign and distance is to the rear of the building and should be modified as
such to 75 feet conservatively. 10 inch high letters extend above the roofline and
requires a variance.
Directional signs - 3 enter and exit on North Avenue, 3.2 square feet, and only 1 foot
from property line and is appropriately placed without being in a right of way.
Questions posed by members of the Board ascertained the following: two sided sign
that is located at the intersection and perpendicular to North Avenue traffic. When
entering from Elizabeth Avenue driveway is one-way circulation and drive-thru should
be identified as serves a significant purpose when entering the site with a 19-foot high
building and is located at approximately 15 feet. Confirmed 39 feet of asphalt in rear
Zoning Board Meeting
March 10, 2014
Page 10
due to trash dumpster enclosure access that includes a 6-foot board-on-board fence to
provide separation from commercial driveway. Have all proper lines of sight. Ingress
and egress lanes on North Avenue is currently further away from property line than
existing and under DOT jurisdiction and is favorable to proposed changes. Application
has been submitted to DOT. Could engineer Victorian style lighting but it would
standout as not common to the area and certain fixtures do not provide forward throw.
Mr. Paparo advised has had opportunity to discuss potential for walk-up window with
the applicant and there is potential to include at this site.
Ms. Kile in Seattle (home base) and could have seen as experiment in that city, but
would consider a walk-up or bike thru. Board member indicated the site may have to be
redesigned as well for sidewalks and pedestrian/bicycle customers. Mr. Cahill indicated
most store have pedestrians that must traverse the drive aisles, but will not require
significant redesign more of an addition of a sidewalk or break in the fence to allow
cross access from neighboring business. Board member opened discussion of
proposal being redesigned to account for behavior of pedestrians, have walk-up window
and to provide for safety and pedestrian access of the site. Ms. Kile bike racks are a
LEED element and Starbucks would be amenable to including in design. Also has
recycling program and encourages patrons to participate.
To clarify landscaping – the 6 feet green area shown on Elizabeth, is in fact the right–ofway and the applicant cannot plant trees in property of the municipality. Professionals
recommended the sidewalk be maintained, which the applicant is doing. Is also power
wires overhead in this area and not the applicant’s property. Would be willing to
investigate obtaining permission from the municipality to plant trees in the right-of-way.
The trash enclosures does have a gate for access. Possibly consider using brick pavers
for the sidewalks and the change as previously discussed as to light fixtures.
Mr. Paparo indicated issue is with walk-up window and pedestrian access, that will
require further testimony, however, asked importance with the board as it did not come
up at DRC review. Explained is very important to Board even if not part of the DRC
process. Mr. Cahill advised vehicle uses driveway only, parking is for employees only,
impervious coverage would increase slightly, no seating being proposed.
Mr. Cahill explained grass pavers will not stand up in this type of environment. Making
significant improvements in impervious surface coverage from existing. Including far
more grass than what is exiting, which provides zero water movement. Also must keep
in mind this is a contaminated site, albeit low levels, and will make accommodations for
the Engineering department.
This building is a modular building coming in, that gets dropped on a foundation. With
that being said, there are limitations as to what can be done as far as design and
Zoning Board Meeting
March 10, 2014
Page 11
elevations, clearly not colonial in nature, but new facility is very well designed for type of
features and provides a safe environment. Only 446 square feet, not much opportunity
for design elements. Does not see opportunity to change into a colonial style building.
Member expressed concerns with architectural elements in and entryway to the
municipality. Site is an eye sore, proposed will be an improvement to the site, but not
consistent with the vision for Cranford.
There were no further questions by the Board.
Mr. Marotta opened the application to the public for questions of the witnesses with the
following appearing:
Ray Johnson – Adding a walk up window, asked if there is consideration to add
elements for design standards. Mr. Cahill indicated has opportunity to modify footprint
for walk up window, but must check interior to see if it can be redesigned to
accommodate. Can increase in small increments, but must keep in mind its a
undersized lot that has been vacant.
No one else appeared and this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter
referred back to the Board.
Mr. Cahill reviewed the professional reports as well as report received from Peter Van
de Kooy, CME
Engineering letter – no concerns and request for approvals;
Tried to include as many comments as possible with regard to CME report, pages 8 and
9 as to layout and believes addressed;
Police and Fire has no objections;
Health Department no objections;
Environmental Commission addressed concerns as to environmental conditions on site.
Mr. Marotta opened the application to the public for comments with no one appearing
and this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter referred back to the Board.
Mr. Paparo indicated in light of the discussion, may be best to stop here. Application
carried to April 21, 2014 – re-notice not necessary.
PUBLIC PORTION:
None
CONCLUSION:
Zoning Board Meeting
March 10, 2014
Page 12
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was regularly made,
seconded and passed. The meeting concluded at 10:55 .M.
Mary Ann Hay, Secretary