Planning Board Minutes 5-27-10 Print E-mail



7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building


No New Business to be Conducted Past l0: 00PM


            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






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



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


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.  . 


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


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


No correspondence


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 


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






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


Meeting adjourned unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda White

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 13 July 2010 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack