Planning Board Minutes 7-22-10 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2010

No New Business to be Conducted Past l0: 00PM

ROLL CALL

Mr. Maggio  - absent               Mr. Karkowsky - absent        

Mr. Sandham - absent           Ms. Nielson -                   

Mr. Lipari - present                 Mr. Lewis - present

Mr. Hines - present                 Mr. Canning

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

                                                 Mr. Tobias (alt#2)

Also Present:  Joseph Burgis, Planner

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Open to public for discussion on items not listed.  No public

Russ Lipari passed out an article for properties/expansion of properties providing for an alternative to nursing homes.  He questioned if we should have our planner look at something like this.  It provides for accessory structures as a nursing home, and although it is not in this area, there are some townships allowing for secondary cottages on homestead lot for this purpose. Mr. Burgis indicated he would assume the ordinance addresses it as a conditional use.  Mrs. White was asked to try and get information on this to the planner.

Mr. Tobias noted this is an affordable mom/dad unit, but this is more of an assisted living type of structure.  What is nice is that once unit is no longer needed, the structure is removed.   

PLANNING BUSINESS

Master Plan Discussions

Gary Lewis noted for benefit of public and press, we meet regularly on the master plan and is pleased it is making such progress.  By September there will be a draft land use plan available for public viewing allowing for comment on the website, and this is a credit to the Planning Board and professionals.

Reports from Board Liaisons: no comments

a) Board of Adjustment – Gary Lewis   

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

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

WAIVERS

PMISC10-32 II-VI – 20 Chapin Rd. Suite 1005 – B: 183, L: 7.2 –   additional back up generator (diesel) for un-interrupted power supply – no change in tenancy – no parking spaces affected -safety bollards will be installed.

Approved subject to compliance with use letter and any agency findings in a Motion made by:  Larry Hines seconded by John Visco – Roll call:  Unanimous

PMISC10-33 Central Irrigation – 1 Como Ct. – B: 41, L: 1.5 – storage of organic fertilizer/seed inside existing tenant space – no other change to current operation

Approved subject to compliance with use letter and agency findings in a Motion made by:  Larry Hines, seconded by Deb Nielson – Roll call:  Unanimous

PMISC10-34 Living Water Tabernacle – 29 Whitehall Rd. – B: 100, L: 2 – share church facility to have services at alternate times than the current Montville United Methodist Church – services to be held Sunday afternoon from 1pm-4pm and Tues from 6pm-9pm – no signage proposed – no changes to structure or site – 3 employees – also re-roofing separate school building behind church

Approved subject to compliance with use letter and agency findings in a Motion made by: Larry Tobias, seconded by John Visco – Roll call:  Unanimous

RESOLUTIONS

         

CORRESPONDENCE

PMN/C08-19 Como, Donna - B: 41, L: 1.2, 1.3 & 1.4– 47 Jacksonville Rd., 49 Jacksonville Rd. & 2 Como Ct. – request for extension of approvals for 60 days to: 11/10/10

Motion made by:  Gary Lewis

Seconded:  Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous

MINUTES

Minutes of July 8, 2010 – Ladis Karkowsky, Victor Canning, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio , Russ Lipari, Jim Sandham, Larry  Tobias

Master Plan Subcommittee minutes of 7-14-10 – Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis

Motion made by:  John Visco

Seconded: Deb Nielson

Adopted unanimously

INVOICES

Omland Engineering – O/E for: $202.50; Trust for: $405, $135, $337.50, $168.75

Burgis Associates – Trust for: $236.25, $1,511.25 (O’Dowd Rezoning 2007)      

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $31.25

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $135

Motion made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded: Gary Lewis

Adopted unanimously

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

None

OLD BUSINESS

None

NEW BUSINESS

PMN/C09-05 Healy, Michael – 37A and 35A Stoneybrook Rd. – B: 21.01, L: 23 & 24 – lot line change with variance – Notice Acceptable                     ACT BY: 9/30/10

Mrs. White summarized application.  The Healy’s submitted a lot line adjustment to add 3,372 sq. ft. to their site in order to enlarge their existing single family dwelling.  The Healy’s parcel is land locked and accessed via the driveway for adjoining lot 24.  It is entirely within R80 zone.  Lot 24 fronts on Stony Brook Road and is within the R27A zone and I80 zone.   

Present:  Michael Sullivan, Esq.

Tony Garrett, Architect

Summarized:  He represents the owners of 37A (lot 23) and they are purchasing a 20’ strip of adjacent land from owner of 35A (lot 24).  As represented this is a lot line adjustment, and applicant wants to put a 771 sq. ft. addition to his existing home.  Both lots are in the CWR Restricted Zone and the Highlands Preservation Area.  The proposed improvements are exempt from the requirements of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act.  The homeowner wants to add a level, a garage and expansion of master bedroom in rear one story family room over an existing wooded raised deck.  Variances meet C1 and C2 criteria. 

Variances:  westerly side yard set back

                  easterly side yard setback

                  rear yard setback

                  existing lot area – if subdivided -  will increase to 15,548

                    lot width

                   Building lot width @ setback

                  5,000 sq. ft. building envelope

                   Access off a private drive

Mr. Garrett – sworn in and previously accepted

Site plan and architectural plans were revised.  Plan displayed in the existing survey part of the plan.  This depicts existing Healy lot and lot 24 which is flag lot which is accessed off a drive.  Proposing a lot acquisition of 3372 sq. ft. to the east and will change lot 23 from 12,076 to 15,548 sq. ft.

Variances also requested for Private drive off Stoneybrook.  All of the changes proposing have no impacts to lot 24.  Applicant is improving the lot which has existing variance as well as technical variances.  Homeowner is proposing a 771 sq. ft. addition to existing structure.

Sheet 2 of 2 dated2/11/2010 – colorized version of sheet of subdivision map and survey marked in as A1.  Map displayed reviewed for the board members. 

There is an easement that provides easement to lots in question.  Lot 23 has no frontage on Stoneybrook Road, which is one of the variances noted as existing.  Lot 23 is in the R80 zone, and is a pre-existing lot.  Lot 24 is a split zone parcel with zoning in R27 and R80.   Whatever is being done will not be a concern to any houses that are next to this property as to proposed expansion of home.  No impact to existing homes.  Closest home is on lot 24 which is 100’ from this lot line adjustment and is on the other side of the private drive.

Aerial photo reviewed and marked as A2 – existing dwellings reviewed showing all of the existing dwellings.  Neither of these dwellings will be affected by lot line adjustment.  Dwellings are substantially larger than existing home. 

Larry Hines:  where is the piece of land that is being added?  Applicant colored the area in question in noting it is only 20’ wide.  The deck is to the rear which is heavily wooded to the west and where addition is being proposed is on southwest and won’t be visible to the other properties. 

Drawing ST102 shows the 300’ buffer on lot 24 and this is a development constraint which is why the addition is being built over the existing deck.  It is in the Highland’s area.  The addition to the northeast of the dwelling, a garage, reviewed.  There is no garage on existing lot and this garage is proposed to be one car garage with new front entry built over existing driveway.  The applicant is building over existing coverage.  The applicant is proposing addition to front of house over existing stoop and sidewalk with a new garage 16x20’ facing the residents in area.   There is a one story addition over existing deck.

Any other additions in the future if not associated with subdivision must go to the Board of Adjustment.  The property on lot 24 can be further subdivided but both Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Burgis indicated that there are environmental constraints that would make this difficult as well as the Highlands.

Mr. Garrett summarized variances:

Proposing addition on westerly side of building in southerly direction creating a variance since home is within 5.2’ at southwest corner of existing building.  Northwest existing is 3.6’.  Applicant needs sideward variance.

Addition to rear will require rear yard variances, but lot adjustment winds up making it larger.  The southeast corner is 64.6 off the rear properly line.  Proposal will be 67.5’ off rear property line.

Size of lot is non-conforming 80,000 sq. ft. is also required proposing although they are increasing in size. 

Variance on easterly side yard setback required:  applicant proposing 26’ zoning requires 31.5’ due to height of house.  Existing setback is less than 20’ so technically making it larger.  Had this property been in R27A zone, the required side yard would be 26.5’ but R80 zone requires larger but this doesn’t appear to be a problem.

Feels that his testimony satisfies the hardships under C1 criteria:  this  is an existing lot predating ordinances, it is undersized, no lot frontage so applicant is not trying to create a small lot in R80 zone.  Because of the lack of size, the lack of lot width all of which are existing non conformity, adding additional area to lot lessens variances.

There is a 61.11’ building lot width where 180’ required.  Applicant proposal increases same to 81.11’. 

There is adequate light and area and this proposal furthers goals of municipal land use laws.  Client believes that the proposed addition on the building are an improvement to the existing dwelling and are making a slightly more conforming in residential lot.

He feels there is a public benefit of putting a garage on dwelling and enlarging house makes it more congruous with adjoining residents.

The other variance is development of a private road ROW.

Joe Burgis:  accurately identified variances, and it is true, he is in fact reducing the magnitude of existing non-conforming.

He does feel this is a C1 variance since testimony relates to physical features test, and ability to comply, but doesn’t feel this is a C2 relief indicating applicant should focus on Cl issue.  Mr. Sullivan felt there is a public benefit when a garage is provided in a zone since housing of vehicles makes it more enhancing and aesthetic.    

One other variance:  do not conform to the existing proposing size of lots in this area, but by adding area they are enhancing this nonconformity.

Applicant does not meet the requirement of providing a 5,000 sq. ft. building envelope. 

The critical issue is coverage which is two indices and this application is reducing this.  There is no substantial detriment.

This is furthering intents of master plan. 

Applicant will comply with professional reports.

Mr. Sullivan indicated as to the Omland report.   

Omland report:  comment 2 – easement runs from Stoneybrook and this is neither changing nor being intensified since these are existing single family zone and there are certain number of trips.

Comment 3 – concerns on relocating well.  Omland report questioned if this was wise.  Mr. Sullivan indicated they will  try and see if the well can be located, and talked to Board of Health and will comply with their standards.

Comment 4 – was on stormwater management issues and they will work with applicant.

The applicant is exempt from Highlands. 

Open to public hearing none - motion to close to public made by Gary Lewis, seconded by John Visco – roll call:  unanimous

Gary Lewis:  move for approval since you are taking an undersized parcel and making it closer to what the zoning requirements are, would be subject to all agency findings, is exempt from Highlands, and granting of all variances requested, County Planning Board, and normal subdivision conditions of resolution approval.  Seconded by Larry Hines

Roll call:  Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, John Visco, Larry Hines, Larry Tobias & Russ Lipari

Motion made to adjourn made by Larry Hines and seconded by John Visco – roll call:  unanimous

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

Secretary

.

With explanation

With explanation 

With explanation

 
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 18 August 2010 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack