ROLL CALL:

Ann Kievit - Excused
Bill Walsh - Present
Jim Armstrong - Present
Carl Miller - Present
Santo Verrilli - Present
J. Laughlin - Present
David Toye - Present
Bargiel - Present
Leatham - Excused

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Minutes of the January 6, 2000 meeting were reviewed. A motion was made by Mr. Walsh and seconded by Mr. Armstrong to approve the minutes. All were in favor. Motion was carried.

APPLICATIONS:

Advanced Self-Storage - Block 16, Lot 3.04 - ZB-2-00-1: The applicant was represented by Christopher Quinn, Esq., who advised the Board that they wished to bifricate the application so as to give testimony relative to the use variance primarily. They will then refine their site plan for the next meeting to review bulk variance requests and site plan issues.

Mr. Brigliadoro gave instructions to the Board relative to bifricating of the application. He noted that the testimony given tonight would be relative to the use variance. They will have to give special reasons - he highlighted the standard reasons. The applicant also has to give proofs relative to the negative criteria.

Mr. Quinn swore in all his witnesses. Stanley Slachetka, P.P., William Perry, Robert VanZile and Bernard Caffrey, P.E. were all sworn in. Mr. Slachetka summarized his qualifications. The Board accepted Mr. Slachetka's qualifications.

Exhibit A-1 was marked. The exhibit was a map depicting the surrounding area and what types of uses were in the area. He noted that the property was located in the southwest corner of Route 94, approximately 3.3 acres in size with frontage on both Route 94 and VanDecker Drive. The topography is rolling. The current use of the property is vacant. The applicant proposes to construct a combined office and self-storage facility with the office development in the front. 7,200 square feet of office space and 35,000 of self-storage facility. 29 parking spaces 27 standard and 2 handicapped. 25' driveway onto VanDecker Drive.

Surrounding development includes the rail road. Yellow represents single-family residences that front on Orts Road and Route 94. The area in green reflect areas that are agriculturally assessed and vacant. Red reflects restaurants. White is residential and golf course development. The grey represents the industrial facility owned by the VanDeckers. He stated that there is a mix of residential and other land use types of uses along the corridor.

The next exhibit included 12 pictures that reflect the general character of the area. The exhibit was marked as Exhibit A-2. Exhibit A-3 is a colored copy of the proposed site plan.

The planner advised that photo one shows the residence at the corner of Orts Road and Route 23. Photo 2 shows another residence on Orts Road. Photo three shows a residence on Route 94 and #4 depicts Gilbertos restaurant and #5 shows Route 94. Photo 6 shows the view from the north of the site and shows the intersection at Vandecker Drive. Photo seven shows the auto repair building on 94 and photo 8 shows a picture of the other auto facility on Route 94. Photo 9 shows the subject site. Photo 10 shows the sand and gravel facility. Photo 11 shows the concrete facility.

He noted that the existing commercial facilities are standard construction and design.

He referred to the goals and objectives from the Master Plan relative to the Route 94 corridor. He stated that the proposed use of self-storage is consistent with the goals outlined in the Master Plan. He further noted that the office and self-storage facility will be consistent with the municipality's concerns with developing a ratable base, controlling traffic.

He further noted that the property is located in the CR Zone. He stated the permitted uses and conditional uses in the zone. He noted that self-storage is not a permitted use in the zone. Additionally he advised that they do not satisfy all of the conditions of the conditionally permitted use variance.

He noted that he felt that the site is specifically sited for the proposed use because it is situated as a main artery through the township, already noted as an area suitable for commercial use. He also noted that it would serve the residents of the community. He advised that there are various types of units constructed and proposed that include townhouses and condominiums in the neighboring vicinity. He felt that it is least intensive of the coHe referred to the goals and objectives from the Master Plan relative to the Route 94 corridor. He stated that the proposed use of self-storage is consistent with the goals outlined in the Master Plan. He further noted that the office and self-storage facility will be consistent with the municipality's concerns with developing a ratable base, controlling traffic.

He further noted that the property is located in the CR Zone. He stated the permitted uses and conditional uses in the zone. He noted that self-storage is not a permitted use in the zone. Additionally he advised that they do not satisfy all of the conditions of the conditionally permitted use variance.

He noted that he felt that the site is specifically sited for the proposed use because it is situated as a main artery through the township, already noted as an area suitable for commercial use. He also noted that it would serve the residents of the community. He advised that there are various types of units constructed and proposed that include townhouses and condominiums in the neighboring vicinity. He felt that it is least intensive of the commercial uses with respect to traffic. Further the applicant through the design of the development is not proposing typical or "standard" self-storage facility with respect to visual impact.

The planner referred to the architectural plans submitted with the applicant's original application. He felt that the applicant was providing a desireable visual impact using creative design means. He further did not feel that the application presents a detrimental impact to the neighborhood or neighborhood scheme. He further noted that there is an extensive landscaping plan proposed, which will further enhance the development.

Exhibit A-4 was marked, which was a colored rendering of the proposed building that would face Route 94. Exhibit A-5 was an architectural rendering of the rear of the property with proper landscaping screening. He further stated that the uses to the south are industrial uses.

Mrs. Talley asked what the height of the berm and the height of the trees on the rendering. Mr. Quinn noted that the applicant in consideration of future plans for golf course development they were sensitive to have the rear of the property be visually pleasing and buffered.

Mr. Quinn noted that although it is not required to do in a case of an undersized commercial lot, he did ask adjacent property owners if they were willing to sell the applicant additional land. The property owners were not willing to sell, but the applicant did share his vision and landscaping plans with the adjacent property owners. The mininum acreage is 6 acres for the conditional use, but the property only consists of 3.3 acres.

The planner discussed the reasons why they need a variance with respect to lot area.

Janice Talley asked questions relative to the number of variances requested. She noted that the applicant's subsequent revised site design necessitates more variances than the original site plan drawing.

The planner noted that the plan does not conform to the lot area requirement. The design does not comply with the . The setback in the front and side is met, but the rear yard setback is not able to be met.

It was noted that the original plan depicted a smaller front building, which requires less variances.

Mr. Van Zile gave testimony regarding their historical experience in the self-storage business.

He addressed the need for the additional square footage in the primary building. He advised that they plan to use split faced block and glass keyed doors to access climate control storage. He further noted that there is nearly 0 climate controlled space in Sussex County.

Mr. Verrilli asked how may units will be available in the facility. Mr. VanZile said approximately 300 units, including 5x5 spaces, and various other sizes. Their experience at their other facilities is approximately 10 cars in and out each day. Mr. Walsh asked for an explanation of the loading dock. He asked what is the largest size it is 10 x 30.

Thehearing was opened to the public. Page DeBelle asked what their proposed hours would be. She asked if the storage facility would be opened 24 hours. They said that only specific customers would have 24 hour access according to need. She also asked about the lighting plan. They stated that the lighting would be dimmed as the night wore on. Mr. Miller noted that if the use variance is approved, then the site plan would be reviewed and specific issues would be dealt with relative to lighting, landscaping, etc.

The Board took a brief recess.

Upon returning from the recess, Mr. Quinn noted that the applicant after conferring at the recess, agree that they will reconsider submitting a plan that does not necessitate too many variances. They advised that they had not further testimony to offer relative to the use variance request and lot area variance.

Mr. Guerin noted that he did not oppose the use variance, but agreed that the applicant should try to eliminate some of the other bulk variances and the need for the FAR variance. Similarly Janice Talley concurred that the use is acceptable, but the need for bulk variances need to be reduced.

Mr. Brigliorodoro noted that the granting of the use variance would be conditional upon the receipt of site plan and other variance approvals.

It was confirmed that the use variance and the bulk variance for lot area would be decided this evening.

A motion was made by Mr. Bargiel and seconded by Mr. Verelli to grant the use variance and lot area bulk variance. All were in favor. Motion was carried. It was noted that the application for site plan and bulk variances would be carried without further notice to the May 4, 2000 meeting.

RESOLUTIONS:

Pet Spa & Resort - Block 75, Lot 45.01 - ZB-10-99-1: The resolution was read into the record. A motion was made by Mr. Armstrong seconded by Mr. Laughlin. All were in favor. Motion was carried.

Annual Report: Motion by Walsh seconded by Toye. All were in favor. Motion was carried.

BILLS:

A motion was made to pay the bills by Walsh and seconded by Vireli All in favor. Motion was carried.

ADJOURNMENT:

Having no further business, a motion was made by Mr. Virelli and seconded by Mr. Walsh to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor. Motion was carried.

Minutes prepared by:

Marianne Smith

	Web www.hardyston.com

---

(c) Hardyston Township 2001-2007. All rights reserved.