|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
PLANNING BOARD
TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville
Municipal Building
MINUTES OF MAY 27,
2010
No New Business to be
Conducted Past l0: 00PM
ROLL CALL
Planning
Board:
Mr. Maggio – present Mr.
Karkowsky - present
Mr. Sandham, Mayor - present Ms.
Nielson - present
Mr. Lipari - present Mr. Lewis - present
Mr. Hines - present Mr. Canning - present
Mr. Visco -
entered late Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present
Mr. Tobias (alt#2) - present
Township
Committee:
Art
Daughtry - absent
Tim Braden, Deputy Mayor - present
Don Kostka
– present
Deb
Nielson – present
Jim
Sandham – Mayor – present
Also present:
Joseph Burgis, AICP
Michael Carroll, Esq.
Frank Russo, PE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Chairman opened meeting for any public discussion on items
not listed. No public. No discussion items from Planning Board
either. Board & Township Committee
proceeded to the public hearing discussions on Affordable Housing and COAH
certification process/resolution.
Public hearing on Fair Housing – Master Plan
COAH certification Resolution – Township Committee Meeting
Secretary noted compliance with MLUL notice requirements
Mr. Burgis gave background information on affordable housing
issue, describing where we have been, where we are today and where we are going
in future, as well as changes in Trenton. He reviewed the Mt.
Laurel decisions, going from Mt. Laurel
l thru Mt. Laurel II which focus were
twofold: the constitutional obligation
to provide fair share housing numbers in a developing municipality as well as
‘what’ constitutes your fair share of regional needs for affordable housing,
summarizing that eventually each municipality has to provide affordable
housing, which resulted in development of COAH and obligations of COAH in
supplying fair share numbers to a township (every six years or so). This forced municipalities to stay current
with these needs.
We are in good position.
We have a lot of credits in our housing tank to meet our prior round
obligation and a good portion of growth share obligation since back in l985 we
were part of Mt. laurel litigation settlement, and we settled for 565 affordable
units, many of which were built, and that is why we are in a good position.
Presently there are three components: rehab of 14 units, prior round of 261 and
growth share of 84 units. Initially the
numbers for growth share was 316, but we took an issue with this number, and
ultimately reviewed their data and provided information supporting actual
numbers using zoning regulations, environmental constructions.
Highlands allowed
municipalities an extension for one year based on their regulations in
highlands. This growth share number went
from 316 to 84 and this is where we are today.
Our obligation for growth share is 84, prior round 261 and 14
rehabs.
Final backdrop, several additional items: litigation is ensuing over past number of
years. He reviewed all of the various
litigation cases pending against COAH, as well as Governor’s Christie’s task
force which would alter affordable housing in state, as well as the Lezniak
bill and various forms of it that would modify affordable housing needs. Just
recently, the Governor made statements identifying his position on how it
should be readdressed, and in essence all of these items made a number of
similar recommendations which were to abolish COAH, take afford able housing
issue and put under DCA, repeal the fair housing act, and reduce set-aside
requirement from 20 percent set-aside to 10 percent set-aside. They recommended regional contribution be
reinstated (it was deleted) and that primary focus would now be rehab vs. new
construction, all of which are a dramatic change in state of NJ.
DCA, when they do their reviews of our housing plans would
only be reviewing underpinnings of plan, not determining new housing need
numbers and most important and not serving as a mediator for disputes.
With this as backdrop, our housing plan will address our
obligation. Our prior round of 261 is
completely addressed by existing housing in township. See page 25 for table identifying those
projects. We have so much credit that we
still have 211 excess credits to apply to our growth share obligation. We don’t have to rezone any lands in our
township to meet this. There is only one
other that is in a good of a position in the state.
Left is the rehab of 14 units. COAH regs require that we seaside at least $10,000
per unit for ½ which is $70 and we need this in mid point of 2018 which we mean
we have to set aside in 2014 70 grand in our budget for rehab. We would then have a marketing plan to
encourage residents to apply for these findings, and if income eligible and
represents elements acceptable can get grants and/or loans.
Housing plan is extensive document. An ordinance is included, identifying an affordable
fee ordinance on new residential, spending plan and resolutions which are
required to adopt, including resolution forwarding this to COAH, which indicates
this document is endorsed and we are seeking certification. Benefit is that it protects township from
future Mt. Laurel litigation thru 2018. After saying this, one caveat to offer is that
based on what is being said by Governor and Lezniak bill, all of this could
change. You could be entitled to further
reduce if numbers drop, and we can amend this element with a new public
hearing. If numbers are projected up,
you are only account able for these numbers thru 2018.
Gary Lewis: this is worst case scenario in terms of
growth plan. Mr. Burgis: yes, it can
only get better. Our affordable housing
number would likely go down.
Mr. Koskta: could
rehab number change? How do you qualify
for it?
Mr. Burgis: numbers
may go up. Governor clearly indicated
that the primary focus in future should be for rehab so there will be no new additional
units. He indicated governor’s directive
is to identify to find units in township that would be low/moderate assistance
units that would benefit.
How this is defined, asked Mr. Lipari? Mr. Burgis summarized it is done by
methodology of median/low income figures in a region. What you would need to do to participate for
loans/grants, you are obligated with a deed restriction that says for next six
years you will leave in that house, and if you move, you will need to pay back
that loan. If you leave beyond, that
restriction is listed.
Deed restriction: Mr.
Braden asked do you need an attorney to include in their deeds. Actually COAH requires this, but it is an
easy form but is a standard form and has passed legal review in past.
Likelihood is that COAH won’t exist, but DCA will. Some of the legislation says DCA will take
most of COAH regs. Deb Nielson:
if this is adopted, then we are protected even if numbers go up and we
would be grandfathered at 14. Discussion
ensued on funding and legislation requirements.
Funding mechanism is to the extent of new units in township, portion of value
of this house and this house is then used for rehab obligation but what happens
if we run shortfall. Township is
obligated to adopt a resolution with intent to bond for deficiency.
With a surplus, you could provide additional funding mechanism
for loans/grants or additional affordable units, however the kicker in the
Lezniak bill and in Gov. Christie recommendations are if funds aren’t expended
over a period of time, the State of NJ
can take this monies and use it somewhere else in the state. There is no defined window at this time. They are still putting regs together so no
specific time period established. If you
haven’t prepared a plan within two years of date of regulations, they will take
the monies.
Mr. Sandham: for
obligation itself, on the calculations and
developable lands, noting that COAH counted things like medians of highways,
dedicated open space lands, have we challenged this. Is it 253 lowest and possible numbers or are
there further challenges.
This is challenged by League, and a group of 20 which is a
conglomerate of townships in a lawsuit.
A lot has been changed since this case was heard back in December: Governor’s task force and Lezniak bill all
dramatically modify the way the state will be thinking about affordable
housing. Most significantly, state will
not give numbers, and gives it back to the municipality.
Gary Lewis: funding aside for rehabs, it appears there is
little choice on this. Is there no
difference for zoning for new units if you had a need vs. not providing for rehabs?
Mr. Burgis: the MLUL requires that a township in order to
have a zoning regs must have a land use plan and housing plan so technically,
we have to adopt a housing plan.
Townships are not required to file plans with COAH. You can choose to or not choose to do that
component, but you have to adopt a Housing element. Filing the plan with COAH, you are protected
from Mt. Laurel litigation; you know what an
incredible expensive prospect this could be.
The benefit in particular to Montville
is that because we have so many existing affordable units, you have a plan that
you don’t have to do more than what you did and it should get certification.
Gary Lewis: back to funding, if rehab component of 50% of
units total $70G, we need to know back of the envelope estimate, and you have
to income prospective applicants for users, there has to be costs for this activities. So rather than focus on $70G, if we need to
do baseline, should you figure $70 G plus to cover those costs or should we go
higher. The TC should give consideration
to this. One of the reasons we
recommended a fee ordinance is because this helps for that cost. You don’t have to adopt a fee ordinance. You are under no regulation to do so
thou. If you a re not going to impose it
on the individuals generating the need, you would have to raise it by
taxes. There is a majority of towns that
use the development fee ordinance. We
are recommending a 1% fee in Montville. Regulations allow up to 1 ½%. We gave projections in spending plan to show
how much revenue can be generated, but it indicates that the governing fee ordinance
will pay for rehab costs and will defray administrative costs with housing
plan.
Mr. Burgis gave some examples of this (i.e. annual filing as
to what has taken place with housing plan.)
Development fee monies can pay for that.
It can pay for preparation of housing plan. There are beneficial elements to a development
fee. Some people can view this as a
‘user’ tax. If it is limited to new
single family house, those individuals will be paying freight in future for
rehab of others homes in township. The
rate can go as low as you want. Have
seen these as low as 75%. Most towns go
for 1 ½%.
Deb Nielson: as to draft fee ordinance, administrative
costs, no more than 20% can be used for these fees. Mr. Burgis:
it is a regulation built into the regulations. The reason is to make certain that townships
don’t spend too much on administrative cost vs using monies to see rehab work
or for new construction of affordable.
Deb Nielson: this housing element, this is a
recommendation at this time, the TC must take this recommendation at face value
or modify it. Joe
Burgis: these are all
drafts at this time. It is the governing
body’s responsible for governing body to deal with spending plan and draft fee
ordinance. COAH requires draft and will
render comments. If you get substantive
certification from COAH, you will get 45 days to adopt ordinance and spending
fee, as well as other ordinances identified as draft.
What if we have a building boom, and we reach that goal, can
we modify that ordinance or sunset it?
Mr. Burgis: your obligation is
for 14 units and you are done.
Mr. Kostka: it is a
one time rehab to a unit? Mr.
Burgis: someone can make a second
application. In terms of the obligation,
there are 14 units to rehab, and you got requests from 14 different homeowners
that met criteria, then you are done. We
can assume after 2018 there may b e a 4th round.
Mr. Sandham: what is
the effective date and is it based on site plan approval or not obtaining a
building permit or CO. Mr. Burgis: it is based on filing of a building permit;
one pays 50% if obligation at building permits with 50% at CO time. It is when they come in for building permits,
and they are subject to this fee.
Mr. Sandham: general
discussion ensued on the fee noting that this would not be something we need to
deal with this now. The funds we have to
build is $70G we have to provide for “Plus” additional funds to manage it. Mr. Burgis indicated there may be some way to
put a waiver on this requirement, but he has to ‘search’ into it more and will
let Township Committee know.
Tim Braden: what about ‘knockdowns’? Mr. Burgis:
they are specific exemptions under the fee impact ordinance. Noted that he did include that developments
receiving prel/final prior to adoption this ordinance is ‘exempt’. The other section on page 3 of the ordinance
talks about the residential demolition. This area of ordinance discussed. These are just guidelines, and we can modify
these.
Joe Burgis: reading item no. 2 on page 3, it should read
preliminary/final subdivision and site plan approval. Some of our resolution provides for the
affordable housing and Mr. Karkowsky asked to make sure they will still be
required to provide this. Mr. Burgis
indicated it would do so.
Mr. Braden: who
determines rehab funds? Mr. Burgis: create a committee to handle it or as many as
others do, you contract with a company that does this for a living and it is
paid for out of developer fund, and is a unit fee. Deb Nielson: we have our housing director also. Gary Lewis: difference being is that some entity has to
evaluate the structure to make determination that it is truly in need of
renovation. Someone has to certify that
these are significant structural elements.
Mr. Braden understood that, but voiced concerns on $70G and someone has
to decide the allocating of this monies.
Mr. Burgis indicated in suburban communities he would be shocked to find
14 units. It has to be a low/moderate
income qualified housing unit, and they have to be willing to have a deed
restriction. Mr. Braden: it could be a senior out there on a fixed
income: it could be anyone as long as
they qualified. But you are typing your
home up. Discussion ensued. Mr.
Kostka: I can live in a 2M home I
qualify I can find that I am qualified for a roof. Mr. Burgis:
there is a lot of income certification information. Mrs. White: it has excessive information and
you require assessment of homes. Mr.
Burgis: same type of income.
Russ Lipari: if you compare other communities to Montville, how do they
address this? Mr. Burgis: it varies.
Mahwah handles it in house; upper saddle river thru another entity. It is a decision of Township Committee. Mr. Kostka:
we have to market it, and we have to have an affirmative marketing plan,
it will identify where you will advertise, etc.
Are these funds ever disbursed on a lottery system if there
is a large demand? Mr. Burgis indicated
he has never seen this happen. Only time
this was seen in lower income facilities and that is where these types of
programs are most popular.
No further comments
Opened to public….
Leona Reshner, 20
Timber Road – The $70G: we have a large senior community, and they
receive this, they are committed to six years.
Do you have to assume these people are committed, and think $70G will go
quickly. Then we still have all of Rachel Gardens
(Mrs. White clarified only a portion is affordable – 25% of overall rental
units). This is a rental program and
doesn’t qualify. She feels we will go
thru monies quickly.
Mr. Burgis explained the law and the requirement of rehab
numbers. There are a certain number of
residents in community that income qualifies and a certain number will need to
be rehabilitated. For Montville, State determined 14 rehabs. Regs say
that township must set aside $10,000 per unit.
Ms. Reshner continued:
she voiced concerns about fulfillment of commitment, if there are more
rehabs, won’t we need more monies? Mr. Burgis
indicated once we have achieved the 14 units, we are no longer under any
commitment to provide further rehab
units.
Herb Reshner: talking
about someone whose property is rehabbed and have to stay in property for a
period of time. What happens if they
can’t afford to stay in property? Mr.
Burgis: someone can leave earlier, but
they have to pay back the loan. He
indicated that the six year period is to avoid the issue of people using these
funds for a future resale. What happens
if there is a problem when someone loses their job, etc? Mr. Burgis indicated that they can ask for a
waiver, but has never seen this happen.
Motion made to close to public made by Gary Lewis, seconded
by John Visco – unanimous
Mr. Sandham:
indicated to get to this 70G number with that one percent, all you need
is 7M for development. You will get to
this number quickly in Montville.
Mrs. White summarized the actions that are needed noting
there is a form of resolution in the file, that the Planning Board needs to adopt
and endorse the Fair Share Housing Plan Element, and recommend to the Township
Committee the adoption of a certification Resolution that will be forwarded to
COAH. Motion made by: Russ Lipari, Second: Gary Lewis
Roll call: Art
Maggio, Jim Sandham, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Victor
Canning , Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, and registering the alternates votes,
although not needed, affirmative for Tony Speciale and Larry Tobias
Motion passed.
This aspect of the Planning Board meeting was closed, and
the Governing Body opened their meeting on discussion of the certification
required to be adopted and sent to COAH by the Township Committee. Mr. Sandham noted that before the Township
Committee is a Resolution petition and the adopted Housing Fair Share Plan just
endorsed by Planning Board, and a motion is needed to adopt and forward
Certification to COAH.
Motion made by: Deb
Nielson
Seconded by: Don
Kostka
No discussion
Roll call vote: Mr.
Kostka, Mr. Braden, Ms. Nielson and Mayor Sandham – Yes
Motion carried.
Mr. Sandham moved this aspect of hearing is closed, with a
Motion made by Mr. Kostka and seconded by Deb Nielson, the Township Committee
meeting adjourned unanimously.
Planning Board will move to their regular meeting shortly
after adjournment.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. White
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF MAY 27,
2010
Continued Hearing
Mr. Maggio – present Mr.
Karkowsky - present
Mr. Sandham, Mayor - present Ms.
Nielson - present
Mr. Lipari - present Mr. Lewis - present
Mr. Hines - present Mr. Canning - present
Mr. Visco -
entered late Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present
Mr. Tobias (alt#2) - present
PLANNING BUSINESS
Resolution of Preliminary and Final
Site Plan issued by the Montville
Township Planning Board on June 25, 2009 pursuant Application Number PSPP/FC
05-02-08-07 – Superior Court Action – Hook Mountain Associates
Mrs. White summarized that there is
a request from Mr. Schepis for an amended order to the Judge on the above
captioned litigation. A judgment was
prepared for changes that would indicate if COAH was eliminated, that he be
permitted to relief this developer from relief of building the six units.
Present: Stephen Schepis
Mr. Schepis reviewed the site
issues that was a hotel application, denied, remanded back to Planning Board
and the applicant resulted in age restricted housing. At that time there was a COAH obligation of
10% and that meant 3 units. By the time
of rezoning and public hearing, state increased COAH to 20%. Since Planning Board meeting was required to
meet current codes. Over past few
months, he wanted his client to finish this lawsuit, and he wanted to make sure
that this site be considered as closed.
He indicated the waiver of water and sewer waiver which was denied, and
now with COAH’s issues, the applicant wants to lower COAH number to what is
required, and would put in 3 units of the 28 proposed, which was agreed to with
rezoning. Only reason more that it is
COAH regulation in place at time of approval.
His client wanted more and he would agree to resolve the pending
lawsuit, and that he would agree to what COAH requires in future. The state may never change it. The consideration for the town, the ratable
is diminished by at least $300,000 which is about 1M Township is losing
monies. Seems township doesn’t have
obligation to create these units, and ask if state doesn’t mandate, obligation
would be reduced from 6 to 3 and that is what is being asked.
Ladis Karkowsky: has a problem.
Mr. Sandham: these numbers are included in our plan
adopted and create a problem. Do you
know if other projects ask for similar petition and lose more credits? They are all 20% set-aside, and Mr. Sandham
voiced concerns as to not meeting our obligation under current guidelines.
Mr. Karkowsky asked if we are
required to do this.
Mr. Carroll: rather than decide the case outright, he
remanded it back to Township Committee on hotel matter. We told court we were working on a different
project. Technically the case is still
open, but there is no application to bring it back before the court. We adopted resolution, which wasn’t appealed,
and was satisfactory. We should end
case, but not in this order. He has
rights to ask for amended site plan. As
to the State issue, if the state comes in with reduction, it may lower all
those other 20% numbers. Mr. Carroll elaborated
on opinions from legislative services which indicated if you compare this bill
against Mt. Laurel it is unconstitutional including the
governor’s proposal. If you look for what
is going to happen, there is no guarantee that the courts would sustain these
proposals. You may be at square one
unless a constitutional amendment was made to eliminate Mt. Laurel.
Concerns voiced. Requested the Board consider reduction of the
6 units to 3 units citing changes that may occur with reduction of percentage
of COAH units. After discussion,
Planning Board recommended no changes from their original resolution and
requirement of 6 COAH units.
Mr. Sandham asked Mr. Carroll if he
would put in writing that if the legislative bodies voted to change rules, they
will also change this COAH requirement.
Mr. Carroll: could not.
Mr. Karkowsky: good points raised, but voiced concerns on setting
a precedent for the others
Gary Lewis: there is mechanism to do it that is not like
this manner.
Michael Carroll: normally this requires us to amend our site
plan approval, it was appropriate to do in open forum. We can end this litigation by ending
litigation, and if he wants to remove that condition, file accordingly.
Ladis Karkowsky: he agreed to resolution and that is what we
stand by.
Russ Lipari: thought we just adopted a draft housing plan
which we included, and this would be inconsistent with that housing element.
Michael Carroll: there is no need for motion. This is litigation and all he has to say is
this proposed consent order is not agreeable and we are happy to end
litigation, and if we need to defend this, we will do this.
The order has been proposed, and no
motion needed. Mr. Carroll will respond
that this form of order is not acceptable.
Mr. Schepis: assume these changes come about and a general
modification of all of these requirements is adopted and we have excess of units,
and obligation is reduced by 10%, would you consider this in the future? This is hypothetical situation, not to be
responded to per Mr. Karkowsky.
Mr. Karkowsky: saw no one affirmative on this request. Mr. Carroll will follow up on court
order. His other option is to amend site
plan. Mr. Carroll indicated law may
change. At this time the resolution in
place. .
WAIVERS
PMISC10-26 Dan Hastings – 170
Changebridge Rd. Unit B3-4 – B: 139.3, L: 6 – office (137 s.f.) for legal
consultant/writer – 1 employee – hours of operation Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm –
signage in compliance with approved theme
Approved unanimously in Motion made
by: Gary Lewis
Seconded: Larry Hines
RESOLUTIONS
PMSP/F05-06 – Edson Francisco &
Alekssander Bicalho – request for
approval resolution to be extended to May 24, 2011 – Block: 138.01, L: 3, 236 Changebridge Road – Extended Approved subject to compliance with
agency findings.
Gary Lewis
Russ Lipari
CORRESPONDENCE
No correspondence
MINUTES
May 13, 2010 Master Plan - eligible: Gary Lewis, Russ Lipari, John
Visco, Ladis Karkowsky
May 13, 2010 Regular Meeting –
eligible: Jim Sandham, Russ Lipari,
Larry Hines, John Visco, Lawrence Tobias, Ladis Karkowsky
Adopted unanimously – Art Maggio,
Larry Hines
INVOICES
Burgis Assoc. Trust for: $405;
$371.25, $33.75
Omland Engineering Trust for:
$877.50, $675
Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for:
$62.50, $31.25, $125, $62.50, $125, $62.50, $93.75, $1,843.75, $31.25, $218.75
Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $135
Anderson & Denzler – Trust for:
$483, $517.50
Adopted unanimously Motion made
by: Jim Sandham
Seconded: John Visco
LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
PSPP/FC09-09 Pinto Management Group
– 153 River Road
– B: 131, L: 18 – Prel/Final Site Plan – variances - Carried from 4-22-10
agenda with notice ACT BY: 8/12/10
The subcommittee of Planning Board met on two occasion as
well as our technical meetings with application. This is two buildings, near public garage,
and near public municipal garage.
Present: Steven Schepis, Esq.
He summarized location of site plan. I industrial zone, permits industrial zone,
proposing a warehouse garage with related office, and there are two buildings
proposed. First would b e Pinto building,
the other is a spec building with intended uses industrial uses unknown, anticipate
contractors with small office use.
Outside storage of empty containers
These containers are permitted as longs as screened
Mark Walker, sworn – credentials accepted
Mr. Karkowsky: report
on traffic, will he discuss traffic this evening? Wasn’t aware he was a traffic expert. Mr. Walker is not a traffic
expert, but he submitted this report.
Mr. Karkowsky: traffic won’t be
discussed. Mr. Schepis: many comments had to do with building A, spec
building, and can’t answer traffic due to unknown users. He stated that each tenant will come in on a
waiver of site plan.
Mr. Karkowsky:
confused on how you can do traffic without tenants. Mr. Schepis indicated he reviewed Mr.
Keller’s report but he has no idea what will be generating.
Mrs. White: the
application was submitted in phase 1 and phase 2, can you just ask for approval
of phase 1 and asking for clarification should it be prel/final. Mr. Schepis indicated it w ill be an industrial
use in spec building.
Mr. Schepis explained he is looking for spec building and
just industrial. Mr. Karkowsky indicated
he would want a certified traffic expert, and doesn’t feel Mr. Walker is
qualified for this.
Russ Lipari: reading
letter of May 26, 2010 to Mr. Wozniak, and in going back to Board of Health of
May 11, 2010, there was a statement in that report as to operation, what is
needed is to make sure of what is being conducted: rather than reading entire report, submitted
is a list of other materials that may be hauled at 153 River Road, and assume
this is acceptable, don’t know what the Planning Board is addressing right now.
Are we addressing application as presented or are we
reviewing application as to what is contained in the letter to the Board of
Health. Mr. Schepis: Mr. Pinto has an operation that hauls trash,
he rents in Kenvil, he has five trucks, basis of operation is that trucks come
into building; they park, go on route, dump trash, and never comes to the site
in Kenvil, just parking overnight. He
has empty containers, is dropped at residences, pick up and brought to trash
center, and brought back empty.
His business at Board of Health was hauling construction debris. He intend to increase from five to 11 with
all trucks inside building, and outside storage of empty containers, and the
comments received from Board of Health but interpreted he would only haul
construction debris, but who cares what is being hauled off site, since it is
an empty truck. He is increasing his trucks
from 5 to 11 on his property. Mr.
Lipari: how are you addressing the
traffic issues on what number? Mr.
Schepis: on 11 trucks.
Gary Lewis: asking
this up front? The last construction
dumpster on his job had caulk containers, two cycle engine oil no caps, paint
cans latex and after tipping, these do not come back odor free and clean and
are with 500 ft. of river? Mr.
Schepis: they are cleaned before coming
back to Montville. This was deferred to testimony later in
hearing. Mr. Schepis indicated that they
did testify this at Board of Health.
Russ Lipari: fire
department dispute on report. Mr.
Schepis: one item of problem is access
drive around building, contacted Bob Schmitt and was Chief Egger’s issue, and
discussed, and indicated it is a recommendation, and that Planning Board would
have to resolve it. The regulation
doesn’t mandate it, but says if it is a traffic aisle, need `18’. This is a one story building and heavily
constrained by wetlands, will be sprinkled, masonry and steel construction, and
will be accessible three of four sides.
Chief deferred to us. Ladis
Karkowsky: usually we do not overturn
recommendations from outside agencies.
Tony Speciale: it is
not a requirement, but if they have an access plan, it must be 18’. It is required if they are going to put one
around building. If they want one,
though, it needs to be 18’.
Ladis Karkowsky: how
do they get to building? Mr.
Speciale: they fight fire from other
angles.
Mr. Walker: offered
testimony
Exhibit A1 – May 27,,
2010 – first exhibit is entitled easement location exhibit with a 5/27/10
date. Exhibit is existing
condition. 40.8 acres and heavily constrained
by wetlands and floodplains, noting the different color theme, also reflected 8
utility easements with massive utility and elected and gas easements and an
aqueduct from jersey reservoir with their pipes, water and sewer force main on
site. Purpose is to show developable
potential. White area to the east and a
white area to west, and these are only two areas that can support
buildings. Areas where utilities are
will be parking and access road. Have a
flood hazard zone also on site.
Wetlands and transitional areas were verified by DEP in LOI
by DEP and were intermediate with 50’ transition.
Other land uses in area:
Montville PDW, landscaping yard, to south lands were bought by township
and is residential properties and believes town will use other than
residential, nursing home to the east and office building to the north, and
property fronts on river road by 850’.
Proposal is to construct two warehouse buildings.
Exhibit A2 – site
layout May 27, 2010 – applicant proposes a 1,000 lin. ft. access road,
reviewing the site plan building locations A & B. They will phase project, first being 1,000
ft. access drive and Pinto in rear.
Bldg. B would be in future. Building A is 7,325 sq. ft warehouse and
1,329 sq. office; 17 spaces including ADA,
fenced area in rear of building that will enclose operation of site and garage
doors on easterly side. In this area is
storage area of containers and areas to operate within the site. We are also proposing a fuel storage tank for
this area. Originally it was
underground. Health dept. wanted it
above ground and that will be located within fence area. It will be a fuel dispensing and above ground
fuel tank. Gary Lewis: what class of case? It is either going to be steel or fiberglass
above ground. It will be a steel double
wall tank. Mr. Lewis: make sure of containment.
In bldg. a area, you have parking and storm water detention
area. On exhibit 2 is the flood hazard
area, and are modifying some transition areas and submitted to DEP. They are reviewing storm water as well as
permitting process and believe applicant is on tract for this project. With respect to the warehouse building B, it
is 29,800 sq. ft. with 12 loading spaces, 30 parking spaces and 30 land bank
parking spaces.
With respect to storm water for the site, we have
infiltration area propose for roof run off for bldg. B. This basis is an infiltration basin and meets
all of the requirements for stormwater management (Rate/infiltration/water
quality).Using all of these basins, we are meeting stormwater requirements.
Utilities discussed. He noted there is an existing pump
station on north side of river road.
From this pump station is a force main that goes thru this site. In order to tie into sanitary sewer you have
to flow down to the pump to get affluent into pipe. The lower building, A, has to have pump up to
bldg. B and then A and B will flow gravity to pump station, then pumped up thru
site. Water line will be connected to in
river road, as well as fire hydrants and water service to both building, buildings
will be sprinkled. This will respond to
fire chief’s concerns. This will minimize
those concerns.
The two white areas on first exhibit A is near stormwater
water basin and Bldg. A. Dark lines on exhibit
A2 are utility easement, thru the middle another easement exists containing
power and gas line easements. Property
is extremely limited to build in easement areas allow only parking area. Landscaping is limited to restricted list
that utility will allow. Locations where
buildings are proposed are only two areas where the buildings can be
constructed. The idea of putting an 18’ wide
aisle around these buildings cannot be done.
Mr. Schepis: there
will be a conservation restriction on wetlands and transition area meaning vast
areas will remain in natural state. Mr. Walker: only site being disturbed will be main
utility easements. Amount of wooded area
removed is minimal.
Signage: monument
sign proposed 4x8; façade signs on bldg. A and B which are proposed to be 50
sq. ft, and there is directional sign on Bldg. B directing those to Bldg. A.
Allowable coverage is 20% but actually building coverage is
2%, calculated number is 8.6% and 55% for impervious where 8.3% is applied
(applying reductions on both) it goes to 33%.
Have some variances and one waiver summarizing:
There are two principal buildings on one lot. Only one is allowed
Outdoor storage is allowed but 100’ from residential zone –
property to rear is Pinto. Area is 23.3’
from residential zone. Township bought
to halt residential development. There
are extensive wetlands on this property where there can be no development
(perhaps a ball park which will be more than a 100’ from this area). This area will be storage of containers and
is more of a passive area.
There is a variance for 12 where 3 allowed. Long narrow building due to wetlands and
constraints, depth of building is 60’ and had to provide loading spaces, so due
to this provided 12. This variance is due
to odd shape of building and long length.
Listed two proposed signs where one is allowed. Discussion ensued? Mr. Burgis:
no variances for directional sign, but there is a limitation on wall
signs since zone only allows wall signs.
There is one freestanding sign that needs a variance. This is a 4x8 in front of building Pinto Industrial
Park and also need a building sign where the sign
height is 10’ where 1.5’ allowed.
Architect will review this location
Location height is 25’ where 8’ allowed so sign is higher on
façade. Need one waiver for steep
slopes. This is not a steep property, is
flat and gently sloping but there is a pocket of steep slopes and way ordinance
is written allows a certain percentage of each slope category. Disturbing 2,593 sq. ft. of slopes and this
is steepest slope category and meet all other.
Mr. Burgis: who is
providing info on statutory variance requests?
Discussion ensued. Mr. Walker is
testifying as an engineer.
Loading docks required due to long narrow building and need
access. Only have three loading docks on
a building 450’ long with three loading bays makes no sense. This is only 60’ deep and lends itself to
usability on site. Ladis Karkowsky: do they need a plan. Mr. Carroll indicated if they need planning
testimony to justify variance, it is board decision. If board doesn’t feel the applicant made the
case, then the board acts accordingly.
Mr. Burgis indicated if the applicant is resting on
testimony question is whether or not they met their burden of proof noting question
of negative criteria, master plan compliance, etc.?
Mr. Maggio indicated he has more concerns over 12? Why 12?
Mr. Walker indicated he was developing in a spec type of way. Mr. Schepis elaborated.
Mr. Karkowsky:
suggesting that you are suggesting there is a potential for 12
tenants? Concerns voiced as to greater
potential for traffic.
Mr. Schepis: it is a
permitted use and when Planning Board zoned it as industrial, trucking was
taken into consideration, and it would seem when one looked at this large tract
of land next to DPW and contractor site, one should realize it would have
trucks and vehicles involved. Out of 40
acres, impervious coverage was 15-20% of lot, and there is not much going
on.
Mr. Karkowsky: you
are self limited due to property constraints.
Mr. Schepis: you are
dealing with a permitted use, and are not pursuing a use variance…
Mr. Karkowsky: there
is an impact in this area, and this is what the Planning Board does. Traffic is a major issue, noting concerns
with school buses.
Discussion ensued.
Mr. Schepis indicated this is a permitted use. Mr. Karkowsky indicated this is a permitted
use.
Mr. Karkowsky: opened
to public…
Any questions on what has been said to date.
Herb Reshner, 20
Timber Road – follow up to Mr. Lewis, what type of
materials will be carried here? Is it
noxious fumes? Are materials being
stored in crates over night because it can’t be stored over night, or there is
a prohibition of storing over night in Montville?
Mr. Schepis: no
materials will be brought to site, would be empty at night and when they showed
up.
Herb Reshner: the
trucks are going to be stored overnight but not with storage in it.
What is definition of industrial use, and is there any
specificity. Mr. Schepis: one is a company, Bldg. A., the smaller one
in rear. This has a tenant with 11
trucks and garaged.
In example used, you will have large rigs bringing materials
in the morning at the same time there is a tremendous amount of traffic with
just school buses, where there is a corner with two banks, and a class 6
tractor trailer.
Ladis Karkowsky: did
not get into traffic and want to get into what was discussed.
Mr. Reshner: what
type of materials under industrial use:
flammable combustible?
Mr. Burgis: ordinance
doesn’t provide a specific definition
Mr. Schepis: empty
trucks and empty containers.
Mr. Reshner: is first
building and second approved, or if second isn’t approved, will you build first
one. So it is relevant what goes in any
building. Mr. Schepis indicated each
tenant has to go into the Planning Board reviewing each tenancy and all agency
reviews involved. These intended occupants
must present this evidence, and if Planning Board felt use contrary to what use
is permitted, they wouldn’t approve it.
Ladis Karkowsky: any
tenant has Planning Board review and we will provide notice on it. Planning Board maintains control.
Mr. Burigs: they need
a variance for second building and why they should be entitled to a second
building.
Mr. Schepis: if there
was sufficient area to build in one place, they would build oe big bldg but due
to building constraints, cannot do this.
Mr. Reshner: assume you won’t build the one building since
how do you build this building without a known tenant.
Mr. Schepis:
generally Planning Board would approve a permitted user giving some
examples.
Mr. Reshner: fuel tank is for third party? Mr. Schepis:
for Pinto use only.
Mrs. White indicated look at what is allowed in industrial
zone and it does have permitted uses in that zone.
Closed to public in motion made by: Russ Lipari, seconded Art Maggio
Tony Speciale: what
is size of main on River Road? Mr. Walker:
12”
Tony Speciale: fire
hydrants? Mr. Walker: one in front of
bldg. A in median. Bringing in a 6” line
and is dead end. Another hydrant located within 50’ of fire dept.
connection. It is the fire chief’s
report. No other proposed hydrants (2
only). Closest hydrant to new proposed
road is located adjacent to residential house about 300 ft from existing
hydrant to main entrance.
Mr. Schepis: he owns
this house also.
Fire measures continued.
Mr. Speciale explained how this works as it relates to sprinkler system
hookups, ventilation off roof, and you should consider 8” main for fire
hydrant. Mr. Walker will look into it.
Mr. Russo: waiting
for Mr. Walker to finish testimony to see which comments in recent Omland
report is reviewed. Some are still
outstanding. Mr. Walker will resolve
these with Omland engineering, especially policy decisions like frontage
improvements.
A3 exhibit – aerial
photo – dated 5-27-10 - with photos on same board exhibit - River Road and
aerial view of site.
A4 exhibit – array of
photos – dated 5-27-10 – purpose is to talk about improvements along River Road,
involving curbing, landscape and lighting.
Keep in mind that the ROW is far away from the edge of the pavement and
it has been the board’s policy to put these lights on the applicant’s policy
and pays for this. The lights where they
need to go are in the woods, and the woods would have to be cleared, and seeing
this, and looking at photo, DPW and contractor’s yard is different than office
park area.
Photos handed out for review.
On aerial photo, there are numbers that match photos on top
of the board. Mr. Schepis is preparing
A4 which is the photo array, and these photos depict river road and photos of
the containers that Mr. Pinto uses, one a standard dumpster unit and another in
normal retail sites and the other more of a contractor’s roll off container, so
there are pictures of these included as well.
There is recycling container shown in this also which is an open view to
see cardboard box in container.
Photo arrays reviewed.
Mr. Walker reviewed the aerial photo.
Frontage along River Road
is basically regulated as DEP wetlands/transitional areas. East to the east is wetlands/transition. Area to the west is not wetlands but is utility
easements. Between house and
contractor’s yard and west of this are wetlands. Only area developable is around entrance
road.
Plans submitted revised thru May 5th, sheet 14,
per Mr. Russo, the lighting plan sheet shows more than two across frontage. Mr. Walker:
just proposing two closest to entry way and would be pulled back to
property in this area. He would have to clear this area for site triangle. Ms. White clarified: two lights only. Plan submitted show 7 across front. This was discussed with subcommittee and it
was to be removed. Plans will be
revised.
Are you currently seeking wetlands permits/transitional
waivers for rest of development on site?
Is there opportunity to expand to include additional
lights/curbing? Mr. Walker: don’t’ believe curbing since it could be
maintenance along with edge of road.
Can’t answer this but think you can get a permit but vegetation must be
cleared. Looking to west of house,
lighting fixtures will be 12’ from edge of pavement. Vegetation goes to edge of road so would need
to clear this area and eventually vegetation would grow back.
Is there an existing dirt driveway into site and where is
this in relation to proposed driveway?
Mr. Walker: to the east pointing
to A2 exhibit. Proposed lights for streetscape
would be located in area adjacent to access drive. Could add in the previously cleared
area? Noted these would have to be
permitted since there are high tension wires in area.
Have you determined depth of gas main running thru
site? Mr. Russo voiced concerns due to
gravity crossing of gas mains and if it is an inopportune location, designs
would change and better to know now than redesigning in future. Applicant indicated he is attempting to get
this info.
Mrs. White: the only
change may occur would not be subject to the building locations. Pavement areas per Mr. Schepis are
allowed. Mr. Karkowsky: we will want to see something from these
utilities. Ultimately applicant will need separate contracts.
Deb Nielson: along
this line, the site plan with PSG&E towers would go and may affect
site? Mr. Walker indicated they did not
have info for the towers which will be on easterly side of tract, and only gave
general location, and they will need to give easements and must approve fencing
so access isn’t cut off. A letter will
be required as part of this submission.
PSG&E letter required? Mr.
Sandham: need letters from all three.
Mr. Schepis: will
need contracts from them explaining they want a set of the approved plans from
township which they incorporate into the contract, but it is a condition of
contract. Mr. Carroll must make sure
that this is submitted and defer to experts.
Mr. Walker indicated some won’t talk until ready to build. Professionals should guide board on
this. Mrs. White indicated this is
required as part of the construction permit process.
Curbing across the front of property? Applicant is proposing not to do this. Board has to make decision on this. Now there is drainage sheet on this
property. Once you put curbing in, you
complicate drainage. There are a few
drainage basins, but sheet flows from street into wetlands to west, and it
would be a problem to put curb there.
Mr. Lewis: the views in photos
A3, existing conditions, are you suggesting a developed site should have that
as curb appeal/street appeal? Is this
what we want? Mr. Walker: it would make sense to curb the frontage and
don’t believe area on westerly side makes sense. From this standpoint, applicant has no
problem. Omland’s report requested curbing
goes to inlet and it makes sense to do this frontage.
Mr. Walker: area
marked on plan which would encompass frontage of site is 350’ up in this
area. Mr. Tobias: existing utility lines and new tower
discussed? Mr. Walker: existing easement area.
Seth Leeb, Architect - sworn – credentials accepted
Mr. Leeb reviewed architectural plans. The drawings on display are what is in the
package with date March 2, 2010. A1 one
of 2, of Bldg. A reviewed building which is going to be concrete block split
faced block building photo 9 in photo array and is just a pictorial showing
dark brown band and dark beige base. It
is showing warehouse area for storage and five overhead garage bays and in one
space, there is office area involving bathrooms, dispatch, lobby, separated
bathroom, and doors are dictated by use of building.
Variance is being sought for signs 8’ required but asking
25’ to height of sign. If you look at
the buildings and have a long entrance drive and a large distance, idea is visibility
to see as you come down the drive, what the identifier is and felt if it was
lower, it would not have visibility and have problems with doors/windows.
Mr. Karkowsky:
wouldn’t directional sign suffice?
The first building will be the building most occupied, so don’t see an
argument for height of this sign. The
directional sign will just say Pinto with arrow. Ladis Karkowsky: put it at the 8’ requirement.
There will be a small office upstairs in mezzanine. Will be flat roof with slight pitch to rear
and will have a three sided parapet.
Masonry will be concrete block. Split faced on visible
sides.
Second building – bldg. B – 450’ with 60’ at narrow point
with 80’ at other end and is closest to river road. This is up 25’ vs 8’. This sign is up high so that if there is a
loading space and vehicle in front is the idea you see sign above vehicle.
Height of building is 24’10” but overall height to top of
parapet is 32’ and has three sided parapet with a flat roof that is slightly
pitched, and is similar materials and similar colors. The square footage of this building is 29800
sq. ft.
Mr. Schepis: overhead
garage doors. Mr. Leeb: you can ride into these garage doors. This is not a loading dock. It would allow for a vehicle to drive in, and
is more similar to a garage vs. a conventional loading dock. It is a drive in garage type.
In designing this, Mr. Leeb indicated that the shape is
dictated by the allowable building footprint in the area, and tried to maximize
what is functional building designs. If
it were wide and shallow, better to get maximum use out of area. Ladis Karkowsky: would like to see it a bit shorter. Can’t see 12 different loading doors with 12
possible different tenants and increase of traffic and concerns me.
Mr. Schepis: is there
a difference in garage door vs. loading dock.
Mr. Burgis: functions the
same. There is a maximum number of 3.
Mr. Sandham: what
predicates a drive up and in vs. loading dock use? Mr. Leeb:
gave example of a mechanical contractor and have three vans loaded
inside vs. a straight loading dock. Mr.
Sandham: this is not designed for
tractor trailers and is just for van types.
Any type of truck can go in there.
Size of doors: 12’
high x 14’ wide per Mr. Leeb.
Why are garage doors clustered? Mr. Leeb indicated more for
architectural break up and it was the owner’s desire. This was a consideration and conceptually if
it were one tenant it could be broken into operations, giving other examples
since it is a spec building and wanted it flexible but do know you need a
certain number of egress components.
Ladis Karkowsky:
troubled by 12 doors. Seems in
excess and understands what he is saying.
Mr. Leeb: Proposing
one sign on this building which is vertical so there could be 12 tenants on one
sign. It is a 5x10 size which is large
enough and would go on one sign. No
other ID on building.
Mr. Schepis: would
make more sense over tenant door. Mr.
Burgis: you can have a nameplate over
door with an overall square footage of 50 sq. ft.
Ladis Karkowsky: two
recommendations – get a traffic engineer and get a planner as expert
witness. Joe Burgis: have not heard rationale.
Mrs. White: As it
relates to spec building you are asking for variances, and you get a tenant,
and he needs to change these doors, and if you are going to need variances,
each time a new tenant will require amended hearing with notice. Mr. Burgis:
as you tenant a building the location of doors will change. Asking variances up front without knowing
users and it may be a waste of time.
Gary Lewis: concerned
with presence of construction roll off containers whether empty for appearance,
health officer refers to vehicle washing and does not say container, and
suggest if there is a program/vendor that is done standard and addresses odor,
environmental hazards, bring someone to talk on this.
Ladis Karkowsky: want
to see a plan that reflects if the truck is unable to ‘dump a load’ how this
will be handled. Mr. Pinto will have
the answer.
Mr. Canning: worked
in a transfer station, noting concerns about findings things that close the
whole site down. Point is all the trucks
waiting in line couldn’t dump since it would be shut down. Board is right: what is plan?
Jim Sandham: fuel
storage site as to easement/utility line.
Will we get clearance on this for this type of use? Mr. Schepis:
will get this answer.
Deb Nielson: want
applicant to confirm the status of this property due to waste water management
plan and some is excluded from sanitary sewer service. This property backs up to Metro which is our
open space and would like environmental commission to see if you could provide
an access for future trails system being constructed from property to River
Road.
Do we need architect back?
Not needed.
Applicant was carried with notice to June 24, 2010 with
notice preserved and time to act extended on record. June 30th
Motion made by: Larry
Hines
Seconded: Russ Lipari
Roll call: unanimous
Meeting adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by Jim
Sandham, seconded Art Maggio.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. White
Another exhibit marked
CONCEPTS
Meeting adjourned unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda White
|
