Township of Fredon
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:          Weber, White, Masters, Boland, Carstens, Andrews

MEMBERS ABSENT:             Wilcox, Ennis

ALSO PRESENT:                    David Soloway, Esq.
                                                    David Simmons, P.E., L.S.

Chairman Andrews called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. with the statement that this meeting is in compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act, Public Law 1975, CH 231, Section 4.
Mr. Andrews invited those present to participate in the salute to the flag.

MINUTES:
Mr. White moved acceptance of the minutes for the June 8, 2010 meeting as posted and waived reading.  Mr. Boland second.  Roll call vote:  In favor, Weber, White, Boland, Andrews.  Opposed, none.  So moved.

CORRESPONDENCE:
As shown on the attached agenda.

RESOLUTIONS:
None

HEARING OF NEW CASES:
G&S Associates, LLC, Block 101, Lot 6, “D” Use Variance
David Gherlone, Esq. introduced himself. He explained that the applicant is proposing an expansion of an existing non-conforming use to include the second floor of the building. The applicant wishes to create a family restaurant and remove the residential use on the second floor, making this a family fun area with billiard tables, arcade games, etc. A small bar and a waitress station will also be added.
Mr. Gherlone asked the Board to consider two major issues: 1. Waiver of Site Plan for purposes of Completeness and 2.Waiver of Site Plan in order to accomplish this Use Variance. He added that the applicant could not possibly incur the cost of a Site Plan. If it is deemed necessary, it would be a deal breaker for the applicant, as the sale of the property is contingent upon the Use Variance being granted.
Mr. Soloway stated that he feels very uncomfortable waiving Site Plan from the get-go. Mr. Andrews added that he can comprehend waiving Site Plan for Completeness, but not altogether. Mr. Masters agreed with Mr. Andrews.
Robert Tessier, P.P. was introduced and sworn in. Mr. Tessier spoke how he went to the site and walked around. He found the site to be in sealed condition, with a transient type design. The upstairs appeared to be used as a rooming house with one kitchen and 7 beds.
Mr. Tessier related that although the applicant is trying to improve the building, the impervious coverage will remain the same. He then proceeded to show drawings of the proposed rooms. He added that the pictures do not depict the actual design, but are shown to give an idea of the rooms.
Mr. Tessier then explained the reasons for relief. He stated that the applicants believe the alteration of the second floor gaming room would make the property more attractive to families, while making it less attractive to certain groups of patrons who formerly frequented the property. These former patrons generated many complaints from adjoining residential property owners due to their noise and other disruptive activities. Mr. Tessier added that since the intent is to change and improve the clientele, the applicants feel the proposed alterations to the property will have no negative impact on the zoning plan for the area.
Mr. Andrews asked if there are any wetland issues with the property. Mr. Tessier stated that he walked the property and found no wetlands within 150 feet of the property. Mr. Andrews asked if the existing building is a tear-down or a gut job. Mr. Tessier answered that it will be a gut job. Mr. Masters asked about the seating capacity. Mr. Tessier affirmed that with the septic design as is, they are allowed up to 60 seats. He added that the hours of operation will be from 11:00 AM to 2:00 AM. The building is not on the town register, therefore, not an official historical site, but was built in 1927.
Mr. Tessier informed the board of the positive criteria: enhance the neighborhood area, get rid of transient boarding rooms and add a restaurant/bar with a ‘family flair’ to it.
Mr. Soloway explained to everyone present that variances ‘run with the land’. It may be this applicants desire to deem it a ‘family bar’, but if the building were to be sold, the next owner may not have the same intentions.

At this time, the floor was open to the public.

Ms. Martinez, 206 Newton-Swartswood Road, asked how many occupants will be allowed in the building. Mr. Tessier answered that he would have to check with the fire official to get the exact amount. Mr. Cunningham asked Mr. Tessier if he feels it is a good idea to have people backing out of the parking lot onto Newton-Swartswood Road, which is very busy. Mr. Tessier remarked that the applicant is willing to improve the septic design, thus allowing for more parking and possibly eliminating a couple of the front parking spots which are very close to the building and the road. Mr. Grau, 206 Newton-Swartswood Road, asked if the applicant would consider closing the doors of the establishment at 11:00 PM. He fears the same problems will occur: drunks walking the neighborhood all hours of the night, people arguing/speaking loudly in the parking lot, beer bottles being flung at people’s properties, etc. Mr. Tessier once again explained that the clientele will be a completely different clientele than what has been in the past. He feels it will be more upscale. Mr. Smith answered that he is not willing to bend on the closing hour to be less than 2:00 AM. Mr. Coleman, 213 Newton Swartswood Road, asked when the bar was in use last. Mr. Tessier voiced that he did not know when it last operated as a bar, but has been vacant for a year or so.

Lisa Benvenito-Smith was sworn in at 8:35. She explained that she is the wife of Andrew Smith, co owner.

Ms. Benvenito-Smith spoke about the concept of operation. She explained that the establishment will be a sports bar that will attract families after sporting events. The food will mostly be home cooked, using personal recipes and will offer a gluten-free menu. The second floor is critical to the business as it will be a place for kids to enjoy while dining. We hope to attract dart leagues, Monday night football fans, and families who were at local sporting events who want to stop in and enjoy the food and fun. We will have multiple large screen TV’s with different sporting events playing.

Mr. Soloway asked if the public could view any copies of the pictures that the board has seen. Mr. Tessier passed out copies to those who wished to view them.

At 8:40, a ten minute break was taken.
At 8:50, the meeting resumed.

Mr. Soloway asked Ms. Benvenito-Smith how representative of these plans will the place be. She commented that the staircase will be different, but a ‘wow-factor’ will still be achieved. Mr. Soloway made note to everyone that the pictures passed around are only depictions, not real plans.

At 8:45, Andrew Smith was sworn in.

Mr. Andrews addressed the floor and voiced that he, too, would have the same concerns and would not want to live next to what once existed on the property. Mr. Andrews referred to the parking and asked how many parking spaces are there on the property. Mr. Smith specified that as is right now, there are 23. Mr. Weber asked if the new septic design will allow for more parking spots. Mr. Andrews remarked that by moving the septic up on the hill, it could create more parking, even if it is gravel. He added that overall, it will make the parking lot safer because, as Mr. Tessier stated, the front parking situation (backing out on a busy road) would be eliminated. Mr. Andrews recounted that the driveway would then be changed from pervious to impervious, which would then lead to the Site Plan issues spoken of earlier. Mr. Gherlone spoke at this point and added that this could be a condition of the variance. Mr. Soloway expressed concern over this. He added that in terms of the concept, you are saying that you are not willing to be subject to the requirements of the Site Plan Ordinance, but you may be willing to make certain improvements if it is a condition of the Use Variance, so long as the board doesn’t direct compliance with the Site Plan Ordinance or deem this to be an application which requires Site Plan approval. You believe that when we use the word Site Plan, you have to refer to the County. Mr. Gherlone answered no. The site plan conditions imposed will make it impossible for the applicant to move forward with this project due mainly to the cost factor.
Mr. Andrews expressed his concern with the approach of not having a Site Plan because one cannot see all of the proposed changes that will take place. Taking it all on faith, not on paper, is very hard to do. Mr. Gherlone specified once again that all the applicants want to do is expand the use upstairs and simply improve upon the site and improve the septic system. Mr. Smith added that as it existed before, the dining area would smell the septic. The septic system needs to be improved upon in order to have a successful restaurant. It is now undersized. Mr. Andrews asked if an architect has been hired. Ms. Benvenito-Smith answered yes and they have also been out to the site. Mr. Andrews referred to the jut-out in the back of the building. With this being said, at 9:00 PM, Christopher Giordano, co owner was sworn in. Mr. Giordano spoke of the jut-out and told how it is still there as part of the building. He apologized for the plans not really being plans, but to give the Board an idea of what is going to changed. He felt concerned to voice the fact that he did not want to give the Board the idea that just because they do not want to do a full blown Site Plan that they are not going to clean the place up.

Ms. Smith stepped out of the meeting at 9:00. Mr. Simmons stepped in at 9:02 PM. Mr. Soloway explained what had gone on at the meeting up to this point.

The floor was once again opened up for discussion.
Ms. Martinez asked how many bars will be in the building. She also voiced concern over there being the possibility of a deck on the second floor and the noise factor that it could create. Mr. Giordano specified that there will be 2 bars, one upstairs and one down. At this time, he added, they do not propose an outside deck on the second floor. Mr. Coleman asked about the kind of music and what nights will bands play. Mr. Giordano responded that it will mainly be a sports bar, but in the slower off season, they may have some small band music, possibly some dinner music. Mr. Smith stated that his wife is the one who has all of the ideas, but she has left the meeting.  Mr. Soloway asked the applicants if they would agree on having no live music after 11:00 PM. Mr. Smith affirmed that he has not addressed the possibility of an early closing time with his partner.  Mr. Coleman asked both owners if they would be willing to test the sound level. Mr. Smith informed the board that he is planning on installing sound barrier material on interior walls and he agreed to conduct a sound test. He added that he is well aware of the problems in the past with late night recycling of bottles, so he intends to serve beer, mainly on tap. Mr. Andrews communicated to the public, as a reminder, that the applicant does have a right to run the business exactly as is. He added the fact that the applicant is proposing to improve the business, but we, as a Board, have to make sure it is in the public’s best interest.

At this point, Mr. Soloway suggested to Mr. Gherlone to adjourn and come back before the board to show exactly what is planned. Both of the applicants and Mr. Gherlone agreed.

The floor was once again opened up for discussion.

Mr. Cunningham asked if soil log testing had been done. Mr. Tessier revealed that it has. Mr. Cunningham then asked if the applicant is willing to work with the Sussex County Health Department to get design approval for the septic. MR. Soloway stated that if the board grants the application, part of the application, in effect, is relocating the septic system. Design approval may be a condition of any approval, so if the board grants the application, the approval would fail if they can’t get design approval. Mr. Simmons suggested that the applicant obtain an opinion letter from Dykstra Associates and a companion letter from the county, indicating that they concur with each other.

Mr. Simmons read his report into the record. Mr. Gherlone and Mr. Tessier were both in agreement with the report, however any dealings with the County, outside of the septic design, they were not in agreement with, as with the curbing and paving of the parking lot.

Mr. Boland asked the applicant to be specific on the selling of package goods and to find out the maximum occupancy for the building.

Mr. Soloway then stated that the application will be carried until Tuesday, November 9, 2010. No further notice is needed.

HEARING OF ADJOURNED CASES:
None

OTHER BUSINESS:
Interview of Phil Sappio

PLANNING/ZONING LIAISON REPORT:
The Planning Board is ready to present the zoning ordinances to the Township Council.

There being no further business to come before the board, Mr. White motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 P.M., Mr. Carstens seconded.  All in favor.  So moved.

Respectfully Submitted,
Lori Schutte
Zoning Board of Adjustment Secretary

MEMBERS PRESENT:          Weber, White, Ennis, Masters, Boland, Carstens, Andrews
 
MEMBERS ABSENT:             Wilcox

ALSO PRESENT:                    David Soloway, Esq.
                                                    David Simmons, P.E., L.S.
 
Chairman Andrews called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. with the statement that this meeting is in compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act, Public Law 1975, CH 231, Section 4.
Mr. Andrews invited those present to participate in the salute to the flag.

Mr. Soloway read into the minutes that Mr. Ennis has listened to the entire tape recording of the hearing held on October 19, 2010 in the matter of the application of G&S Associates, LLC and is eligible to vote on the decision of said matter.

MINUTES:
Mr. White moved acceptance of the minutes for the October 19, 2010 meeting as posted and waived reading.  Mr. Boland second.  Roll call vote:  In favor, Weber, White, Ennis, Boland, Carstens, Andrews.  Opposed, none.  So moved.

CORRESPONDENCE:
As shown on the attached agenda.
Mr. Andrews spoke that on November 8, 2010, the Township Committee voted to appoint Phillip Sappio as Second Alternate to the Zoning Board.

RESOLUTIONS:
None

HEARING OF NEW CASES:
G&S Associates, LLC, Block 101, Lot 6, “D” Use Variance
George Sweeney introduced himself and explained that he is in attendance in place of Mr. Gherlone. He added that Ms. Benvenito Smith, Mr. Giordano, Mr. Smith and Mr. Tessier remain sworn in.
Mr. Tessier presented a Conditions Map and gave an overview of the first meeting that took place on October 19, 2010.
Mr. Masters asked how many employees the restaurant will have. Ms. Benvenito Smith answered 7. Mr. Soloway made reference to the front parking lot and asked the applicants if they would be willing to do away with those spots. Mr. Smith explained that valet parking in the back of the building would allow for an additional 8 parking spots and then the front parking could be eliminated altogether. Mr. Soloway addressed the seating and spoke that at the last meeting it was testified that the seating limit would be 65 seats in the entire operation. Mr. Smith added that the maximum occupancy now is 63, standing and sitting. With the upstairs being completed and the extra parking, he hopes to seat 89 total inside and out.

Mr. Sweeney then read Mr. Simmons report into the record. After much discussion, Mr. Simmons was satisfied with the applicant’s response to his report.

The floor was opened up for discussion at 8:40.

Mr. Coleman, asked about the hours of operation. Ms. Benvenito Smith stated that Monday thru Thursday, 4 PM to 2 AM and Friday, Saturday and Sunday, 11 AM to 2 AM. The noise issue was raised once again and Mr. Smith assured the crowd that he will do all he can to sound proof the building and that no music will be audible from the outside of the building. Mr. Coleman addressed the decking and asked the size. Mr. Smith answered that the deck will be 10’ 9”x 20’. There will be no stairs off of the deck and the tables will be brought from inside to outside, weather and season permitting. Mr. Soloway asked if the applicants would be willing to close off the deck area after 11 PM. Ms. Benvenito Smith remarked that the deck serves as the smoking spot on the property. Mr. Cunningham then made the applicants aware that there is a bright light that shines from the building and causes a glare to the nearby neighbors and to cars that pass by. Mr. Tessier spoke that the applicants will take care of the light. Mr. Soloway asked the applicants if they would agree to a lighting plan as directed by Mr. Simmons. The applicants agreed. Ms. Stripmatter made the applicants aware of the heavy bass that always resonated from the building when a live band would play. She asked the applicants to keep this in mind when the bands play.

Public discussion was closed at 8:50

Mr. White addressed the last public question and asked the applicants why music would need to be heard outside at all. After some discussion, Ms. Benvenito Smith agreed to not have speakers on the outside of the building. Discussion then went back to the parking issues. Mr. White asked if the parking spaces could be made smaller- to 9’x18’, thus maximizing the parking lot. Mr. Soloway spoke that the applicant then can revise the parking plan; eliminate the front parking spots altogether and landscape the front of the building. Mr. Soloway asked about the location and dimension of signage. Ms. Benvenito Smith spoke that the signage will stay in their present locations and will be within the dimensions of what is there now. The location of the HVAC was addressed. Mr. Smith explained that the location of the unit will be on the roof, behind the slanted roof, out of view.

At 9:10 the floor was opened up for discussion.

Mr. Cunningham spoke that he is satisfied with what the applicant is going to do.

Public discussion was closed at 9:13.

Mr. Soloway then reviewed the application. Meeting both the board and the applicants favor,
Mr. Ennis made a MOTION to grant Use Variance Approval, Expansion of a Nonconforming Use and Site Plan Approval. Mr. White second. Roll call vote: In favor: Weber, White, Ennis, Boland, Carstens, Andrews. Opposed: Masters. So moved.

HEARING OF ADJOURNED CASES:
None

OTHER BUSINESS:
None

PLANNING/ZONING LIAISON REPORT:
Mr. Boland reported that the Karen Ann Quinlan Resolution has been memorialized.
 
There being no further business to come before the board, Mr. Carstens motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 P.M., Mr. Masters seconded.  All in favor.  So moved.

Respectfully Submitted,
Lori Schutte
Zoning Board of Adjustment Secretary