6-10-10 Planning Board Minutes Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

Minutes of June 10, 2010

No New Business to be Conducted Past l0: 00PM


Mr. Maggio  - present               Mr. Karkowsky - present        

Mr. Sandham - present           Ms. Nielson - absent              

Mr. Lipari    - present               Mr. Lewis - present

Mr. Hines - present                 Mr. Canning - present

Mr. Visco - present                  Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present

                                             Mr. Tobias (alt#2) - present






No discussion


Soil Movement Ordinance discussion – referral of ordinance

No comments offered from Mr. Burgis.  Since this is more related to engineering, Mr. Omland offered his comments, which will be updated in a report to be submitted to the Township Committee as per their request.

Mr.  Omland indicated:  most obvious comment is that the ordinance numbering system must be addressed.

He suggested that the fees portion of the ordinance should be reviewed also.

He suggested applications under 500 cu yds be $25 minimum and that those that are over and that are at a board level be changed to indicated the ‘initial’ escrow deposit is $1000 so applicant is put on notice additional fees may be required.

He indicated the language still relates more to ‘removal and that the language should be clarified to indicated that it may also involve soil importing.

Chain link or cyclone fencing is not permitted.  This wording should be consistent with correct code and eliminated as being allowed.

And most important, based on what we experienced with the Stefanelli application that we require any soil imported be accompanied by a certified lab testing demonstrating compliance with NJDEP Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Criteria.

Discussion ensued on exemption being permitted for any fill (i.e. topsoil) that may be brought onto a resident site, noting that 50 cu yards would be an execution.  Mr. Sandham did not want to see any impact created either by cost and/or imposed municipal regulations that would create hardships. 

Motion made by:  Art Maggio 

Seconded by: Larry Hines

Mrs. White was instructed to forward the report from Mr. Omland incorporating all of the comments offered as the Planning Board’s official review recommendation report.  Mrs. White noted that other comments offered were incorporated into this draft and that comments made by Mr. Carroll were also sent to Mr. Barile. 

Reports from Board Liaisons:

a) Board of Adjustment – Gary Lewis   - Mrs. White noted Quick Chek is rescheduled to August Board of Adjustment agenda

b) Board of Health – Lawrence Tobias  

c) Environmental Commission – Vic Canning 

d) Water & Sewer – Arthur Maggio 

e) Historic Preservation Commission – John Visco 

 f)  DRC – Deb Nielson  

g) Site Plan/Subdivision Committee – Russ Lipari Chair, Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, & John Visco (alt)

j) Economic Development Committee – Tony Speciale

k) Open Space Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson  & Jim Sandham – Mayor indicated the township applied for and received a $60,000 grant for trails in open space properties to make trails allowing for more active recreation

l) Master Plan/COAH 3rd Round – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis & John Visco (alt)

m) Cross Acceptance Committee – Lad is Karkowsky, Russ Lipari  

n) Highlands Legislation Review Committee – Gary Lewis

o)  Appointment to Fire Department Districts – Russ Lipari –Towaco; Tony  Speciale for Pine Brook, Art Maggio for Montville


PMISC10-28 Lucien Group International, LLC – 20 Chapin Rd. Unit 1009 – B: 183, L: 7.2 – Office (1,991 s.f.)/warehouse (3,337 s.f.) real estate project and construction management services – 20 employees – hours of operation 8am-5pm M-F – FedEx/UPS/DHL deliveries 1-5 per day – no commercial vehicles parked overnight – signage to be in compliance with approved them (First Industrial)

Approved unanimously in Motion made by:  Art Maggio 

Seconded:  Larry Hines

Subject to agency findings, use letter and sign theme.


PSPP/FC09-10 Trinity Baptist Church – 160 Changebridge Rd. –   B: 124, L: 12.3 – Prel/Final Site Plan with variances Roll call: Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Jim Sandham, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale, Lawrence Tobias

(Note:  Mr. Visco present)

Frank Scangarella, Esq.

Applicant’s attorney requested board to grant variance that was originally sought and then withdrawn at the meeting.  He indicated although requested, the Board was acting on the supposition that the next door property would have an objection, and didn’t stating so at the hearing.  He indicated that although the granting of variance was true in minutes, the church indicated this will require a reconsideration of the design approved.  Applicants are a church/school and they ask the board to allow this variance to stand. Public notice issue discussed. 

Mike Carroll, Esq. discussed variance with the 20’ setback, and summarized background and notice provisions.  This was requested by applicant.  Board said action was taken and if new action required, public notice must be made for changes.

As to Performance Guarantee based on engineer’s estimate, and this township does not bond for private improvements, and does not want guarantee or bond for guarantees for public protection device.  Would be small

Resolution as drawn stands – no changes

Motion made by:  Gary Lewis

Seconded:  Art Maggio

Roll call:  Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Jim Sandham, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale, Lawrence Tobias




Burgis Assoc. – Trust for: $405, $202.50, $202.50

Uhl Baron – Trust for: $250

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $45

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $187.50

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $270, $1,923.75 (Rails), $187.50, $135

Motion made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded by:  Tony Speciale

Roll call:  Unanimous





PSPP/FC10-07 RAILS STEAKHOUSE  - 8 & 10 Whitehall Road – B: 96, L: 3 & 4 - Site Plan/Variances for development of retail/apartments /restaurant site – Notice Acceptable                     ACT BY: 10/8/10

Professionals sworn

James Stathis, applicant

Discussed location of site

Applicant will require height variances and variance C bulk setback variances, as well as a Soil Removal Permit and Sign Variances

Jim Stathis, Applicant

Credentials stated and history of desire to develop in community he lives reviewed for board.  He summarized Montville needs a town center and is located in this zone.  6 SF residential units, restaurants, retail units.  Funding is in place.  The current scale and design is critical for economic viability.  Project will increase ratables, and will help revitalization of Towaco center.

Anthony Garrett, Architect & Planner – presenting info as architect. 

Exhibits A1 and A2.

A1 from south – elevations

A2 from north – elevations

Applicant requested to present exhibits on a document that the Planning Board can maintain in record and/or smaller copies.  He indicated he has reviewed the master plan and ordinance zone.   This project will be complimentary to creating a center of town, looked at site, environments around site.  North side of Main Road shopping center and some significant massing of buildings on north side of Main Road.  Parking field and train shelters to south of tracts.  Site is not an undeveloped site or pristine site, there was a barn and house there torn down there many years ago.  Site is vacant and examined master plan and tried to come up with a design for mixed use development, and believe an anchor element. 

Issues on the site discussed, noting site layout plan exhibit marked in as A3 dated 6-10-10.

Setback in ordinance would only allow 20 to 25’ deep, explaining need for variances due to long lineal site.  Parking is on west of site and on east of the site.  Covered porches are integral with design of master plan.  The ordinance calls for overhangs, calls for awnings and canopies. 

He reviewed the walkway along façade which will provide cover and provides a space for people to experience walking in front of the retail shops.  Since parking is on the west side of site, envision this more as an outdoor walking mall. 

Review A100 basement floor plan from bottom up.  The top of sheet is Whitehall and bottom is Railroad side.  Have a building of 16,500 sq. ft. with covered porches.  16% to west is below grade and is storage for residential and retail.  There are places in building for building management.  In addition there are building storage areas which will be collection points for residential refuse.    Building management will be responsible for dealing with this.

There is a knuckle between the two buildings, slightly bent in middle.  There is a 14’ grade change and saw this as a good design on the east side for deliveries to make it separate from retail/residential on west.

Bottom part is somewhat public space, small cellar type bar in basement, depicted with bar stools, wine cellars, aging rooms where people could look at steaks, chops, etc.   Louvers will be incorporated into architecture.   

Ground floor plan A101 dated 5/25/10 depicts retail spaces and you can see two entry doors.  Discussion continued on review of floor plan and layout of sidewalk along Whitehall Road.  Heavy timbers look of atrium.  Main entrance is on porch seating side of building.  There is a greeter in side vestibule.   Building has sustainable features, rain infiltration gardens, indigenous plantings, in addition, will integrate a structural slatted panel to provide a continuous insulation of thermal barrier, looking at heat off condenser units to hot water, solar heaters in residential units and will register for Leeds certification, which is difficult on restaurants. 

In restaurant there is large gathering space, large chair, more like a waiting room area, with access to main bar; open kitchen, table seating areas, fireplaces, ability to service floor seating areas.  144 seats required.  Realize limitations of occupancy and seasonable area is not in addition to but is included in total amounts.  Egress discussed.

Green roof discussed explaining possibility of herb garden:  strictly passive for residents and is not another seating area for the restaurant.  Balance of second floor:  two one bedroom, four one bedroom.  Last unit to the east is oriented to a one bedroom facing Whitehall Road side, since it is remote from restaurant.  Building will have proper sound attenuation between uses and rest of areas.   Panels help in mitigation of sound.  The knuckle separates where there is lesser activity which provides segregation between units.  Seating areas and catwalk discussed.  Kitchen is a one story space. 

Area is a screen wall, metal lattice work screening kitchen area.  The building itself is used to screen mechanical spaces from residential uses across the streets and all of the outdoor seating areas are on the railroad side of the property.  On the design, the design was to respond to Planning Board concerns.

Demonstrate compliance with ordinance:  allowed 11, proposing 6; retail shops, gatherings, personal service, small eating and drinking establishment more like a coffee shop complimentary to Towaco center. 

Signs:  a number of variances required but they have been architecturally integrated into the design.  These will be more in rhythm with building, and the other side is restaurant so the signs are larger and mounted higher and want to identify restaurant for it to be elevated, not illuminated and wooded and complimentary to the building. 

Signs are externally illuminated.  Looking for signs on both facades and tried to implement the design of freestanding signs.  Heavy timber and are not pylon signs like on Rt. 46 and these are understated.

Mr. Schepis:  displays freestanding sign exhibit 

Sign rendering exhibit marked in as A4 – dated 5/25/10 elevations depict sign and size of sign – dated 6-10-10

The area for monument sign is approximately 50’ to east of Pine Brook Road over rain infiltration and berming.  Because of this, have a tall base on north side of road, and although sign will be 8’ which is ordinance requirement, the rear side which grade was measured was 10’. This is ot a 10x15’ sign but due to berm area, height higher.

Anticipated uses of space discussed:  no intent to have concerts on second floor deck.  There will be background internal music with speakers on outside, and will meet noise ordinance for township of Montville. 

Gary Lewis:  elevation A200 exterior, how a standing seam prefinished roof meshes with rail architecture.  Mr. Garrett indicated that it was used in some of the western areas.  Not trying to create a railroad station but trying to implement by articulation and modulation. 

Stan Omland:  testified that the maximum occupancy for seating is 144 based on parking variances, and addressed seating, but space on variance levels, how does seating lay out?  A space planning and size of the building and if you can fit 500 seat, why such a large expansive area.   The Board should see seating arrangement for restaurant, and therefore monitoring of seating can be coordinated.  Applicant will provide schematic on a maximum day seating layout.

With respect to which is front to retail, should you design it, and you don’t know, and one wants entrance, there is confusion as to which a patron would shop, and would walk in wrong store.  Both doors will have access, and can function as a service door, but won’t look like a back building.  Mr. Burgis:  building along waterfront similar to this in another area some storefronts have access from both sides, some only have on north and some on south side, and it does lead to some confusion, and concur, it would be beneficial to have access from both sides.  Efficient retail space doesn’t want two front doors.  Like design and flexibility, think having two entrances breed confusion and operation difficulty, and this needs to be addressed, and decide which is front door and design around it.

On east side, will there be noise testimony on louvers, noise testimony and uses?  Mr. Garrett will testify to this noting there will be sound attenuation around equipment, and louvers are facing parking lot and not facing to south of residential and outdoor spaces and potential noise is shielded from residential areas is based upon mass of building.  To the north not as concerned, and will adhere to ordinance but does not believe this area will travel beyond parking lot:  they are talking low level music.  No concert but there may be live entertainment in enclosed area (guitar/piano).  There won’t be bands on balcony.   Concerns:  Will music from facility be constant background to the north?  Applicant’s testimony is that the parking lot will dissipate the noise and there will be no impact to the residents on the north.  If there is an issue of this after this fact, the goal of the Planning Board is to have controls in place.  These open seating areas are roofed over and fenced area.  These are no balconies projecting out, and can work with noise directed back to restaurant vs. out.  When the board adopted ordinance, a lot of thought went into this at that time.  We do not want the public adversely affected. 

Basement plan, tenants:  do they have access to this area?  Tenants have access to this lobby, but there are doors that service restaurant.  There will be an access control within building, and there is a low voltage level design for this project.  Basement has no outside dining.  Seating plan will depict seating and bar in basement with large seats in alcoves.  To the south of the dotted line, anticipate seating for four people around a table and this seating plan will be given.  The other sustainable feature was able to salvage wood timber from a building, and these series of arches will support timber.

Sheet A101 sheet discussed.  Applicant must add to this plan showing there is a limitation to the seating, and board does not want to think there would be seating in aisle in that area and only should allow seating near restaurant.  Applicant will revise.

The main entrance to residential southwest corner discussed.  Discussion ensued on the entrance to residential units.  A101 sheet discussed:  this is the knuckle connection, and is one of the access point.   Rooftop area discussed.  This will never be used for restaurants, parties. Asked of applicant:  Can residents use this as passive recreation:  only passive recreation?  Applicant is not taking benefit for grassed area.   If it is green roof, is this going to be LEEDs cortication vs. having it a lounge area?  Discussed:  Green roof is not only issues, there other areas to look at.  Surfaces over residential created kind of vessel in space concealed by attic, and will make solar reflected influx to create Leeds credit.  From a township standpoint, did not feel it appropriate for impervious coverage reduction.  Not sure if it is open, can see it as an area of open for residential use.  It is an operational issue, and Mr. Stathis does manage other areas and knows the proper structure to put in lease.  He is local and will be present to police. 

Russ Lipari:  testify as to noise?  Are you qualified?  There will be no noise experts.  Music:  operational times?  Noise ordinance is 10PM.  There is a sophisticated sound system put in place. 

Victor Canning:  what is exact square footage of restaurant are?  The gross square footage of restaurant is 12,800 sq. of public space, with 4,000 sq. ft. of storage space, and approximately 3500 sq. of outside lounge area.

Parking:  concerned with the valet parking.  Cars will be parked in the grassed area.  Mr. Garrett indicated this will be covered as part of parking with engineer and planner/architect.

Jim Sandham:  during EDC meeting, you indicated picking up some of the design from Towaco train station?  How was this done?  Mr. Garrett:  With the choice of colors and materials, he did not want to stucco new building but he tried to create similar rooflines of train station.  Did not try to imitate but he relate this structure to the train station as a distant cousin?  The rendering is darker because of the shadows, it doesn’t depict the brick surfaces, and you look at flat elevations, wherever there are horizontal lines, there is brick clay.

Joe Burgis:  The architects took to heart the elements of the Towaco Master Plan and incorporated this into this design.  There are a few issues with signage that variances will be required, and some comments in reports, which will be a better design than what the ordinance calls for given specifics of building design.  There are other areas when planner testifies:  there is an affordable housing requirement in this site, and this obligation must be addressed.  The Senate passed Senate Bill and it appears that there will be modifications so we should hold off these discussions until our next meeting.  Second issue:  unknown tenants.  Built into the plan, there is a requirement for bicycle racks.  Suggest that if you are going to do this, have a provision that the bicycle rack would be addressed when new tenants are coming into the unit.   

Stan Omland:  where is residential waste collected?  Waste will be collected in the basement, designating area known as building storage and will be to the east of the stairs convenient to the internal stair.  It is one of the few areas that have walls around it to control trash.  The plan needs to have this depicted.  There will be no contracting and open storage.  Building management will deal with this.

Ordinance did not contemplate a strip mall, and design standards are different that that for a strip mall.  Applicant indicated plan elevates more than the master plan Towaco ordinance. 

Vince Dotzerwerch – comments on the plan and is a beautiful concept, and is excited about it. 

Keith Glad - 7 Howell Terrace – Front door and fire access and have something, and he noted that their stockroom was under the basement area, and was worthwhile to have stores to have two entrances and flow happened a lot more and offered personal experiences.

Ed Ahmad Matari - 7 Old Lane – beautiful and excited about this and would like to see this happen

Jerry Fragetti - 8 Oakwood Court –impressed with level of detail and compliments from laymen’s perspective and impressed and on behalf of is neighbors may have an opportunity to finally have a town center, and this is something township has been clamoring for. 

Georg Yost – Virginia Road – architect fits in with entire area and would like to see this

Florence Stathis – applicant’s mother spoke on his behalf

Ed Lisi - 8 Abbott Road – design fantastic – this project is a catalyst to start to realize that vision.  Folks and neighbors who live within a mile who will be managing it and this is a lot of value in this rather than someone outside, which is a nice compliment inn this project.

Robert Fass - Stoneybrook –is supportive of this project if the board didn’t approve this.  Township is lucky to have this group to have this investment in this town when there aren’t too many people making that investment.

Steve Tone - 28 Nathan Drive – train station, lighting architect, and this is a wonderful compliment and echo that it is a successful business man in our town sought a piece of property in our town to enhance a town he lives in.  Wonderful project and will significant add to qualify of the town.

Edward Russnow - 7 Evergreen – compliments the area significantly and be nice not to see empty lots anymore and it is important for the future of the town for Towaco.

Shelly Skelles – vet next door – variance for Whitehall road must be corrected as to lot numbers.  The property is vacant and designated as block and lot, and ntoed that the project is in the area of six and eight and proposes intersection in this area so the notice was expanded to incorporate this.

Shorouq Mataki – 7 old lane – resident for 20 years and work in town and work with a lot of buyers if there was a mina street, and have something like this would be an area that would make her proud of how great this township is.  It is great and beautiful and compliments the area.

Don Rothrock – 44 Maclay road – it will be a great start to have something in this project and drawings look beautiful. 

Sue Olympio – Patrick Court - his would add much to the area, and this will add to the community.

Motion to close to public made by:  Gary Lewis

Seconded:  Larry Hines

Roll call: unanimous

Several meetings were held on this project, and this is only the beginning.  There will be engineers, planners, and will make sure it is within all of the ordinances and master plan, and everyone is excited, and it is a long way from being approved, and come to all of the meetings.

Stan Omland:  represent that the project will be built out as the ultimate project.  This is 100% funded, and there are no budgetary problems involved in this. 

Mrs. White:  DRC info and samples and specifications

Gary Lewis:  references were made to testimony as to testimony and Towaco master plan.  There were as many in audience when this plan was designed to look at this corridor from Whitehall side bridging across the tracts to develop just this center. 

Meeting continued


Jack Constantino – experience in building industry and panels.  Live in Morris County, in building business since l959.  l974 built first passive solar earth shelter building and switched to sustainable design due to gas prices at that time, and that it would be a good idea to offer good energy homes.  Now is to go to highly sustainable very sustainable timber frame homes and commercial structures.  Why timber frame?  Why sip panels.  Mr. Constantino elaborated on the importance of this type of design.  If we dedicate ourselves to the future we must address issues of energy efficiency in every aspect of our homes, particularly with an urgency not yet constructed.  He explained technology.

Exhibit A5 – sip frame

Exhibit A6 – sip panel

Sustainability discussed.  Something sustainable is what it means is that the material being used is cultivating more of than harvested, and this is real definition of sustainability.  He gave history of timber construction and his background history.  He explained:  Benefit of sip panels is that it avoids thermal bridging in construction.  What it means is that every sixteen inches, you are bridging insulating space with a solid piece of wood, so if allowed to build 13 walls that go into conventional construction which we have homes built like this, and look at type of wood and what happens with regular construction.  The sip panel has same thickness and when panels are fastened together, foamed in between and when set, there is a continuous envelope of a true E26 with no thermal bridging.  Roof panels are R40 and the real indication of the success of this type of construction is that in mechanical system design you must design in the amount of air exchange that serves the purpose of the air quality inside the building.  You decide on how many times the internal air is exchanged.  Standard construction happens on a random basis but in a building envelope using sif enclosure, you get to determine the level of inefficiency of that building, now it becomes your control.  The building is so sealed up and doesn’t breathe on its own, and it has to be controlled by a mechanical system.  You have to ask this question which is why aren’t all building built this way, and it can be and there is no great cost differential and is growing but relative unknown, although 4,000 years old, it is unusual to have one or knows of one.  It is an exciting process and agreed to work on it due to sustainable aspect.  It is also beautiful. 

Stan Omland:  Leeds certification - will this building going to seek Leeds because of this product?  Mr. Constantino indicated requirements of Leeds will be met a piece at a time.  Here is no way to say this is appropriate for a complete Leeds certification.  This is not the only guideline and doesn’t even relate to the residential construction because it increases costs.  There are many kinds of rating systems.  Can build as a Leeds construction, it has to more with not only energy efficiency.  Intent and goal to do so:  question is seeking: will this be submitted to Leeds certification.  It would have to be deferral to the client. 

Mr. Tobias:  relationship of post and rail and sip?  Is there a relationship between the two?  Analogy is that both of them can be independent of each other.  Timber frame supplies it, but what is enclosing it is with sip panels.  If no timber frame, can be entirely sip panels.

Larry Hines:  timber frames attachment?  No nails, no hardware, trunnels are used to hold mortice swab and insulation inside is polyurethane foam. 

Gary Lewis:  white pine and is local

Insulation material discussed and applicant indicated they do not flame, will melt, and they do outgas. 

Opened to public

Gary Lewis closed

Larry Hines

Roll call unanimous

Marc Walker – sworn

Reviewed existing conditions on property.

A7 – Aerial photograph exhibit with project superimposed

He reviewed the area of proposed property.  Grade of property discussed, and from proposed center access to the site and rear of the site, there is a 12’ drop in elevation.  Project backs up to NJ Transit to the north and to the north of the railroad tracks is commuter parking area and Rt. 202, existing Towaco parking area.  From Waughaw Road east, TC1 zone, small area of R27, and there are no houses that front on this area.  Adjacent to property is animal hospital and as mentioned Whitehall road and Morris canal that runs parallel to the south of this.  There are some residential dwellings that are on south side of Whitehall. 

He explained the area from Firehouse Lane and also Whitehall Road to the intersection of Rt. 202.  The building as mentioned is on the easterly side of the property which is related to train station and Towaco.

Exhibit A3 reviewed as to three main means of egress/ingress.  One is at the high point of the hump looking both ways.  County asked that there be a yellow blinking light on their side of parking lot:  Center access has the right turn only out.  There isn’t enough distance.  This exhibit is different in that parking access aisle was switched but now put the parking adjacent to the building and shifts our access driver further east and allows 525’ for a 45mph speed limit.  Discussion continued on request for a County letter on reduction of speed limit to 25mph.  They indicated they would not put this into writing, and will do a study to see reduction of speed limit in this area, but their intent is to do so.  There is a yellow speed omit sign that is east of site.  County will be studying this once project moves along.  Because they can’t say specifically speed limit has to be design for 45 mph.  Other modifications reflect to traffic flow, there will be a dedication left hand turn into site for center and have other entrance.  He talked to County on Whitehall road extensively. 

Their plan is to restripe Whitehall and is now a dragstrip, and is looking for traffic calming measures in this area and a re desirous of parallel parking on this roadway and will slow traffic down, and shown 11 parking spaces related to the building and showed 14 parking spaces on his plan.  As a result of this application modifying Whitehall road and providing these traffic calming measures for the entire center and goes towards intent of master plan.

Mr. Shepis: how many on street parking spaces - 18 spaces

Parking plan shows a green parking area which is valet parking. Applicant proposed a grass parking paver area.  Intent of this parking area is that it won’t be used that much, so decided to make changes to parking area so will be gravel parking area (decorative stone).  Discussion ensued.  Increased impervious coverage to address concerns of board professionals to extend the proposed sidewalk along Whitehall into the site for handicap for access that meet ADA, and also in addition to requirement of open space, dedicated the front area and retail area with sidewalk and bench areas, 9 more added so additional coverage added, we went from 53% to 55.1%. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  impervious concrete some type of filtration system vs gravel?  Gravel per Mr. Omland will provide same absorption.

44 valet parking spaces proposed

Main parking lot area to west there are 36 spaces

Have 6 parking spaces to east of building

Other changes:  employee parking spaces will now be dedicated residential parking spaces, and under RSIS, need 12.  These parking spaces will be outside where the public will park, and will be dedicated residential parking spaces.  Concern in parking dedicated, if it was a busy night in restaurant, this would create an issue, so relocated parking spaces this area for residents.

Provided for when there is no valet parking, provided for 18 spaces, so there won’t be people parking, will be employee parking only.  Off the property, there are 11 parking spaces directly to site parallel

Require 95, with valet, parallel, meet the 95 spaces, but need a variance since they are only provided 58 parking spaces on site without valet, leaving 18 parking spaces for employees, but on Friday night and Saturday night, the valet will be in operation, and will have ability to park 95 on site or immediate to site.  Worry about parallel site on Whitehall, applicant is creating them, and there are no other commercial uses that can use these spaces, and felt it permissible to use these spaces for this site.

Mr. Burgis:  technically they cannot, but as part of their variance request, they offered info as to planning testimony.

Art Maggio: asked for clarification about total parking spaces with valet are 95?  Residential is six and is sight distance adequate for the turning based on parallel parking spaces.  Traffic engineer will respond to these issues. 

Is there a sign that will say residential parking only?  Yes

Russ Lipari:  parallel parking is similar to what Boonton has so this would be helpful to flow.  Stacked parallel parking and is easier.

Mr. Tobias:  railroad station area being used?  He noted some concerns on commuter parking.   

Victor Canning:  fire hydrants will be on road, and there are some modifications. 

Russ Lipari:  revised report from fire department was received today, and the applicant will comply with the fire department and applicant will agree.

Gary Lewis:  indicated that the parking on east end was revised to address parking for residents.  Exhibit A3 is only plan that reflects this.  Also moved dumpster away from building so no longer need sprinkler relative to dumpster and created more space.  Supply revisions prior to next meeting.

Motion made to carry to the June 24th – Application carried with notice in Motion made by:  Larry Hines seconded: Jim Sandham



Meeting adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by:  Art Maggio, seconded by Gary Lewis.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda White

With explanation

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