Proper notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act on January 13, 2012.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Proper notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act on January 13, 2012."


1 Call to Order: The regular meeting of the Monroe Township Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman O Brien. The Board saluted the flag. Roll call was as follows: Present Mr. Agnesino, Mr. Caligiuri, Mr. Catania, Mr. Gabbianelli, Mr. Kozak, Mr. Masterson, Mr. O Brien. Absent Mr. Crane, (excused), Mr. Cooper, (excused), Mr. Buerklin, (excused), Mr. Jordan, (excused). Also present Mr. Schwartz, Solicitor, Mr. Kernan, Planner. Proper notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act on January 13, Chairman O Brien read the following statement: Be advised, no new item of business will be started after 10:30 p.m. and the meeting shall terminate no later than 11:00 p.m.. Memorialization of Resolutions: 1. PB Acme Redevelopment Plan Amendments Approved Motion by Mr. Agnesino, seconded by Mr. Kozak to adopt resolution PB Roll call vote: Ayes Mr. Agnesino, Mr. Gabbianelli, Mr. Kozak, Mr. Masterson. Nays Zero. 2. PB Zoning Map Recommended Correction Approved Motion by Mr. Agnesino, seconded by Mr. Kozak to adopt resolution PB Roll call vote: Ayes Mr. Agnesino, Mr. Gabbianelli, Mr. Kozak, Mr. Masterson. Nays Zero. 3. PB Remcor Redevelopment Plan Recommendation to Eliminate Approved Motion by Mr. Agnesino, seconded by Mr. Kozak to adopt resolution PB Roll call vote: Ayes Mr. Agnesino, Mr. Gabbianelli, Mr. Kozak, Mr. Masterson. Nays Zero. Reports: Mrs. Farrell informed the Board that there is only one meeting scheduled in December; on December 6 th. There is an application for Peach Country Tractor, Inc. scheduled for that evening. She asked the Board if they would like to schedule another meeting do to resolutions on December 13, 2012 so the resolutions will not be held up until January. The Board agreed that there should be a special meeting on December 13, 2012 if there are resolutions that have to be memorialized. The Board took a brief recess. Discussion: 1. Small Wind Energy & Solar Energy Systems Ordinance Member s packets contained: 1. Ordinance drafted by Tim Kernan dated November 5,

2 Discussion: (continued) 1. Small Wind & Solar Energy Systems Ordinance (continued) Mr. Kernan stated that he reviewed the ordinance prepared by Mr. Fiore. He also reviewed some ordinances that he helped prepare for other Townships as well as a couple that Mr. Schwartz forwarded to him. The ordinance that Mr. Fiore prepared dealt only with solar energy systems, it did not address wind systems in that there weren t any conditions established for wind systems. The ordinance before the Board includes the recent legislation which indicates that wind, solar, or photovoltaic energy facilities or structures should be considered inherently beneficial uses under the Municipal Land Use Law, which satisfies the positive criteria for the granting of a use variance. It also states that solar panels are exempt from being calculated to determine impervious coverage in land use applications. Under section four in the proposed ordinance, Mr. Kernan listed the requirements for small wind energy systems. He listed the minimum lot size requirement as being three acres, the same as for solar energy systems; however that is open for discussion with the Board. The maximum height of a wind turbine should not exceed 150 feet and the setbacks from all property lines must equal a distance to 100% of the height of the structure including the blades. They will not be permitted in the front yard or as a rooftop installation. Wind turbines on residential properties shall have a nameplate capacity of 100 kilowatts or less. This number is based on other model ordinances by different agencies Mr. Kernan researched. Under section five Mr. Kernan listed the requirements for small solar energy systems. They will be permitted as rooftop installations in any zoning district and shall not exceed twelve inches from the rooftop. They will also be permitted as ground arrays as long as they meet the requirements for lot size, setbacks, etc. The minimum lot size is three acres and the setback distance will be fifty feet from all property lines. A fifty foot buffer will be required if the ground array is in the direct line of sight of an adjoining residence. The buffer will be subject to the requirements of Chapter ; however only half of the fifty foot setback has to be a planted buffer if required. Mr. Kernan stated that the direct line of sight comment was something he inserted because of discussion on the subject by the Board and the issue of leaving it open to interpretation by the Zoning Officer. The planted buffer only has to be on the side of direct line of sight. Mr. Kernan stated that it still leaves the issue open to interpretation but didn t know how to definitively state it in the ordinance. Direct line of sight can mean one thing to one person and another to someone else. If a planted buffer is required, then the applicant might have to make adjustments to the solar array system. There was some discussion on whether privacy fencing could be considered as a buffer. With regard to wind turbines, Mr. Kozak asked about the height and setback requirements. He commented that if a wind turbine is ten feet high, then the setback would only have to be ten feet off the property line. Mr. Kernan replied that that is correct; however you cannot generate any wind at ten feet; they are generally very high in order to generate any wind and be beneficial. Mr. Kernan commented that there are wind maps for the State and this area is generally not considered a good wind area for those types of energy systems. 2

3 Discussion: (continued) 1. Small Wind & Solar Energy Systems Ordinance (continued) There was further discussion on the buffer requirements for a ground mounted solar energy system and whether privacy fencing would be a sufficient buffer rather than planting a buffer and whether the applicant s plan should be submitted and approved either by the Board s planner or the Township s Engineer with regard to line of sight and the buffer requirements, if it is determined that a buffer is required. Mrs. Farrell also commented that the lot size is a minimum of three acres, so sometimes it s not possible to fence in so much property. After more discussion, Mr. Kernan suggested they go through the rest of the proposed ordinance and come back to the issue of buffering and the line of sight issue. With regard to the issue of glare from the solar panels, Mr. Kernan stated that he took that line from the ordinance that was drafted by Mr. Fiore but he didn t know if it was fair to require the solar panels to face in only one direction. Mr. Agnesino stated that will create a problem. Mr. Kernan agreed that the panels will have to be directed in the direction for the best sun. After some discussion, the Board agreed that they would leave the line in the ordinance; however there is no way to determine the effects of the glare until the system is put in. If there were to be a serious issue with regard to glare, it would probably have to be determined in civil court. The ordinance also includes requirements for abandonment, permit requirements, violations, enforcement, penalties, and severability. Mr. Kernan commented that Mr. Schwartz would have to determine where this ordinance would be placed in the Township Code. Mary Cote and Bob Stapleton were present from the public to listen and ask questions with regard to the proposed ordinance. Mrs. Cote questioned the maximum height requirement for the wind turbines indicating that in another town s ordinance, the maximum height requirement is fifty feet on a half acre lot and eighty feet on lots between one acre and three acres. She asked if the maximum height allowed could be reduced. Mr. Kernan replied that he wrote that ordinance for Greenwich Township and the heights related to the lot sizes. In this ordinance, the minimum lot size requirement is three acres, he felt that the 150 feet is the normal height for a lot that size, plus the setbacks would be 150 feet from all property lines. Most properties in this Township that meet the required lot size don t really have the width to accommodate the setback requirements, but if they did or they received a variance, the height of the wind turbine is necessary to generate enough wind to be beneficial. Mrs. Cote inquired about the permit requirements with regard to applicants having a professional engineer prepare their plans for submission. The Board was in disagreement with that because of the expense to the homeowner. The company that will be installing the solar panels, whether ground or rooftop, will be providing the plans and specifications to the Zoning and Construction Departments. With regard to section three and the statement concerning the generation of power, Mrs. Cote questioned whether the statement contradicts itself. Mr. Kernan stated that it did not. It states that the power generated should be for the principal use of the property and not be allowed to generate an excess amount of power in order to sell that power; however from time to time, it may generate more power than required for the principal use and the sale of that excess power will be limited. He stated that the electric company will also be involved in the process and will dictate as to the amount of power allowed to be generated for a residential system. 3

4 Discussion:(continued) 1. Small Wind & Solar Energy Systems Ordinance (continued) Mr. Stapleton asked about commercial solar farms. Mr. Kernan stated that this ordinance is strictly for residential small energy systems. Any commercial energy systems, meaning proposed solar farms or wind farms will have to come to the Planning Board or Zoning Board for site plan approval. Mr. Kernan stated that the setbacks and other issues do have to be addressed for commercial solar or wind energy farms; however it does not need to be addressed in this ordinance for small scale energy systems. The Board returned to the issue of buffers for the solar ground array systems and the issue of what is considered the direct line of sight. Mr. Kernan stated that he does not know how to word this section because every situation is different. After further discussion, the Board agreed that they will leave the wording as is and if changes have to be made later on because there are issues, then they can make those changes. The proposed ordinance will be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee for their review and approval. Motion by Mr. Agnesino, seconded by Mr. Kozak to refer the proposed ordinance to the Ordinance Committee for their review. Roll call vote: Ayes Mr. Agnesino, Mr. Caligiuri, Mr. Catania, Mr. Kozak, Mr. Masterson, Mr. O Brien. Nays Zero. 2. Sign Ordinance Letter dated 11/5/12 from Tim Kernan. Member s packets contained: 1. Letter dated 11/5/12 prepared by Tim Kernan concerning Chapter Signs. Mr. Kernan stated that Councilman Sebastian forwarded a memo over to the Planning Board to ask them to look at the sign ordinance since so many applicant s are going before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for use variances to be allowed to have digital signs/led signs. He stated that he removed some things and added some others to the current sign ordinance. Everything that has been added is italicized and underlined and everything that is proposed to be removed has a line struck through it. In Section C, signs permitted in nonresidential districts, Mr. Kernan added the line, the following signs are permitted when located on the immediate premises. He included changeable copy signs as signs permitted which identify, advertise a business, activity, or product sold on the premises. The changeable copy sign or message center is not to exceed 50% of the total sign area, or be a maximum of twenty-five feet whichever is less, for freestanding signs and monument signs. Mr. Schwartz commented that Taylor s sign and the marquee at the Grand Theater will be larger than that. Mrs. Farrell stated that those applicants went before the Zoning Board for a use variance and right now there aren t any guidelines or standards in our ordinance for changeable copy signs. Does the Planning Board and Council want applicants to continue to have to get a use variance or do you want to change the ordinance to allow them and place certain standards and requirements on them? Right now there aren t any standards or requirements in our code and the Zoning Board has not denied any of the use variances for changeable copy signs. Mr. Kernan stated that there are so many groups and agencies out there with regard to information about signs and that there is a lot of government concerning the regulations. They found codes from other towns from all over the country. They looked at other codes from other towns, as well as the recommendations from the Sign Council, and they came up with the changes shown in the letter before the Board. 4

5 Discussion:(continued) 2. Sign Ordinance (continued) Mr. Kernan stated he did not add the same requirements to multiple occupancy and tenancy signs because he could not rationalize how multiple tenants would use one changeable copy sign. Under Section E, prohibitions, he struck the section prohibiting changeable copy signs. Added to that section is the language that prohibits the changeable copy signs from blinking, flashing, twinkling, or being animated, or having moving lights, except for public service information signs. Mr. Schwartz stated that most of these types of signs do flash or blink. Mr. Kernan stated that they do not want the signs to be able to flash or blink. There was further discussion on this topic; however Mr. Kernan suggested they move further into the changes and come back to that section. The section stating signs are not permitted which have visible moving parts, revolving parts, or visible mechanical movement, including intermittent electrical pulsations was eliminated. Under Section G, Mr. Kernan added a section called Changeable Copy Signs. That section defines changeable copy signs as well as listing the standards and regulations for those types of signs. The signs are not permitted to have off-site advertising or messages, other than public service information if approved by the Township. They shall not obstruct traffic visibility or become a distraction to drivers. They must have automatic dimming controls that adjust the light emitted during ambient low light conditions. In nonresidential districts the signs shall have a minimum display time of eight seconds with the transition in between messages or message frames limited to three seconds. These transitions may use fade, dissolve, or other transition effects except those listed as prohibited. Mr. Schwartz questioned the issue of the signs not being able to flash or blink and stated that that is what the signs are designed to do. There was some discussion on that topic with the Board feeling that they did not want any future changeable copy signs to flash, blink, or having moving lights because it is too much of a distraction and is not aesthetically pleasing for the Township. Mr. Kernan stated that all signs must comply with the maximum luminance level of 750 cd/m2 or Nits at least on half hour before sunset. All signs may resume luminance levels appropriate for daylight conditions at sunrise. Prior to the issuance of a permit for a changeable copy sign, the applicant shall provide written certification from the manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory preset not to exceed the levels specified above. Changeable copy signs are prohibited from continuous scrolling and or travelling, flashing, blinking, spinning rotating, and all other similar effects and must be properly maintained so that inoperative or improperly lighted bulbs do not impair the appearance and legibility of the sign. There was some question by the Board about the signs being able to scroll. Mr. Kozak commented that the applicant s are going to come in for the sign permit and say they aren t going to flash, blink, etc and then they ll do it anyway. Mr. Kernan stated that then those individuals can be cited by the Zoning Officer. The Board decided to send Mr. Kernan s letter regarding changeable copy signs to the Ordinance Committee for their review and input. Mr. Kozak suggested that a copy of the letter should also be sent to Mr. Weikel for his review as well. Mr. O Brien stated that Mrs. Farrell should ask the Ordinance Committee and Mr. Weikel to send their comments or suggestions back to the Planning Board. 5

6 Approval of Minutes: 1. 10/25/12 regular meeting. Motion by Mr. Agnesino, seconded by Mr. Kozak to approve the minutes from the October 25, 2012 regular meeting. Voice vote; all ayes, motion passed. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. These minutes are an extract from the meeting that was held on the above date and are not a verbatim account or to be construed as an official transcript of the proceedings. The tape of the meeting is stored in the office of the Board. Ninette Orbaczewski Clerk Transcriber 6