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
Maggio - absent Mr. Karkowsky - absent
Sandham - absent Ms. Nielson -
Lipari - present Mr. Lewis
Hines - present Mr.
Mr. Visco - present Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present
Mr. Tobias (alt#2)
Present: Joseph Burgis, Planner
Open to public
for discussion on items not listed. No
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.
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.
Master Plan Discussions
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
a) Board of Adjustment – Gary Lewis
Board of Health – Lawrence
Environmental Commission – Vic Canning
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)
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
Legislation Review Committee – Gary Lewis
Appointment to Fire Department Districts – Russ
Lipari –Towaco; Tony Speciale
for Pine Brook, Art Maggio for Montville
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.
subject to compliance with use letter and any agency findings in a Motion made
by: Larry Hines seconded by John Visco – Roll call: Unanimous
Irrigation – 1 Como Ct. – B: 41,
L: 1.5 – storage of organic fertilizer/seed inside existing tenant space – no
other change to current operation
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
subject to compliance with use letter and agency findings in a Motion made by:
Larry Tobias, seconded by John Visco
– Roll call: Unanimous
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
of July 8, 2010 – Ladis Karkowsky,
Victor Canning, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis,
Art Maggio , Russ Lipari, Jim Sandham, Larry
Plan Subcommittee minutes of 7-14-10 – Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis
made by: John
Engineering – O/E for: $202.50; Trust for: $405, $135, $337.50, $168.75
Associates – Trust for: $236.25, $1,511.25 (O’Dowd Rezoning 2007)
Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $31.25
Murphy – Trust for: $135
made by: Larry Hines
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
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
existing lot area – if subdivided - will increase to 15,548
Building lot width @ setback
5,000 sq. ft. building envelope
Access off a private drive
Garrett – sworn in and previously accepted
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Garrett summarized variances:
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.
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.
of lot is non-conforming 80,000 sq. ft. is also required proposing although
they are increasing in size.
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.
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
is a 61.11’ building lot width where 180’ required. Applicant proposal increases same to 81.11’.
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.
feels there is a public benefit of putting a garage on dwelling and enlarging house
makes it more congruous with adjoining residents.
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
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.
other variance: do not conform to the
existing proposing size of lots in this area, but by adding area they are
enhancing this nonconformity.
does not meet the requirement of providing a 5,000 sq. ft. building
critical issue is coverage which is two indices and this application is reducing
this. There is no substantial detriment.
is furthering intents of master plan.
will comply with professional reports.
Sullivan indicated as to the Omland report.
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.
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
4 – was on stormwater management issues and they will work with applicant.
applicant is exempt from Highlands.
to public hearing none - motion to close to public made by Gary Lewis, seconded by John
Visco – roll call:
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
Nielson, Gary Lewis,
John Visco, Larry Hines, Larry
Tobias & Russ Lipari
made to adjourn made by Larry Hines and seconded by John
Visco – roll call: