|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal
Building
Minutes of December 12, 2007
ROLL CALL
Mr. Rosellini - present Mr. Karkowsky -
present
Ms. Kull - present Mr.
Daughtry - present
Ms. Nielson - present Mr.
Visco - absent
Mr. Lipari- present Mr.
Lewis - present
Mr. Speciale (alt#1) -
present Mr.
Hines - present
Mr. Witty (alt#2) -
present
Also Present:
Stan Omland, PE
Michael Carroll, Esq.
Hank Huelsebusch, PE
(Keating Application)
Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
No public
Ms. Nielson: Brought the Planning Board up to date as to
a request made to the Township Committee for rezoning for multifamily housing
on Vreeland Avenue. The development
would be patio type lots. Ms. Nielson
indicated that the applicant would be required to submit escrow monies for
review study, and noted that the applicant was advised that the Planning Board
is undertaking a master plan and that this request would be incorporated into
that study. The site is adjacent to
Longview towards Boonton. The Township
Committee referred it to the Planning Board under these stipulations.
Mr. Rosellini: asked about an email relative to setting a
subcommittee meeting to discuss a zone change on the property behind Schroth’s
and Raia’s self storage asking if this was a formal referral. Ms. Nielson indicated that this property
contains the land that the township reviewed relative to the development of a bypass
road. This by pass road is a Township
Committee goal and development of this roadway would indirectly impact lands in
this vicinity. This applicant would work on development of this road with his
proposal.
From the Township
Committee level, this road is a goal for safety issues and traffic flow. When it comes here, asked Mr. Rosellini, are
we are all studying the master plan as part of it or independent of it? Or does the Township Committee feel this
should be under master plan. Ms.
Nielson indicated that there are areas under study, and she did make it clear,
and that the Township is undertaking an effort to completely look over our
master plan. She indicated the applicant
wanted to make a timeframe, and she noted she felt it would be more than a
year. This area is not in the original scope
of the master plan study, and we have to be mindful of potential spot zoning
issues. If he is putting escrow monies,
it would be studied as part of master plan.
This applicant wanted the township to review aged restricted housing
reports already on file as to what studies the Township has found to date on
this issue. Mr. Rosellini indicated
that the Township Committee had resolutions that there is no further density. Mrs. White indicated that she would process
this request as a rezoning request, take in escrow. Ms. Nielson indicated the Township is investigating the
possibility of this by pass road thru Mr. Barile’s office with JCP&L,
etc. This needs to be finalized first.
Mr. Karkowsky brought
up concerns about the affordable housing numbers asking if there will be a 20% set-aside,
noting presumably the new regs will be revisiting the second round adjustment
number. Mr. Burgis indicated we can
anticipate that our number will go up a bit.
With non residential development, new regulations will have more
stringent requirements for growth share.
A lot of the numbers are doubling as to non-residential growth
share.
How does this affect,
asked Mr. Karkowsky, our various aged restricted zoning. Regulations should be adjusted by a
preliminary report released, but appellant court was critical about 50 percent
being addressed by aged restricted and that this was excessive without
documentation. He understands no data
on this has been submitted, and they may go back to old standard of 25%. Appellant felt this was acceptable. There will be a 60 day comment period, and
Ms. Nielson indicated she presumes the Township Committee will be involved in
discussions in 2008 noting we should make sure these issues go forward. Mr. Burgis indicated in some respective, the 3rd
round rules were thrown out, and this is a major concern since it may be
retroactive. RCA provision has doubled
from $35,000 to $70,000. COAH says this
should be a new fee, yet there is a bill in legislation to relieve this fee
from being required. Mr. Carroll
indicated this bill was to be fast tracked.
Discussion ensued. One other
critical comment where COAH is concerned about collection of development fee
monies, in the new rules, you must establish plan within 2 year period and
within two years, use monies or you lose that monies. Mr. Burgis will report at first meeting in
January.
Paul Miller was
approved at BoA for decorative fencing.
Concerns rose about the head lights on top of lighting fixture being
changed. Zoning will investigate to
determine if the heads were changed.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Secretary announced
carried hearings to dates indicated:
PMSP/F07-12 K & S at MONTVILLE – 49 Old Lane – B: 39.07, L: 2 –
6 Single Family Lots - Notice
Acceptable ACT BY: 1/10/08
Rescheduled to January 10, 2008
with time to act extended to said date.
Application carried with notice preserved.
PSPP/FC07-09 –
BOILING SPRINGS SAVINGS BANK – Site Plan & variance application – 446
& 448 Rt. 202, Lots 78.01 & 78.02, B: 39.11 – Notice Acceptable ACT
BY: 1/15/08
PMS/C 07-18 – BEYER BROS. CORP.- 57 Route 46 East, Block 184, Lot 2
Site Plan & Variances -
Notice Acceptable TENTATIVE
Rescheduled to January 24, 2008
with time to act extended to said date.
PLANNING BUSINESS
Towaco Center Master
Plan - Review of Proposed Master
Plan/Ordinances
Mr. Burgis reviewed the amended Towaco Center Master Plan and proposed
ordinances. Mr. Burgis indicated the
revisions were made November 21st.
This is not a hearing, but following last meeting, went to DCA discussed
items needed for final document. They
raised concerns and the most significant one was the number of dwelling units
did not meet their test of being a mixed use residential project. Voiced a lot of objections to their
position, and refused to give us a number, leaving that to our discretion. The new plan of non residential floor space
is 50,000 to 52,000 sq. ft. Added
information on what they call a content sensitive plan and how it fits in with
surrounding neighborhood. Added a
circulation element indicating walkway paths and how they fit. Added two parking lot designs, municipal lot
in one instance where there is a 50’ buffer with 90 spaces, second alternative
is a 150’ buffer around wetlands, reflecting two plans. Have comments on plan endorsement, how each
of the specifics of smart growth criteria was met. Document went increases from 30 to 45. Cannot tell you that DCA will say it is acceptable, but we did
provide a rationale for why this number should be acceptable. Other additional comment is that we give
them the final draft document and must go to public hearing in month of January
and adopt in order to preserve the grant.
Ms. Nielson: report is well
written. Mr. Burgis: Credit should be given to his staff; Robyn
did most of the work. Some
clarification: Towaco train station
light and if it is approved by JCP&L with alternative lights that are
similar to that, and we should address this to make sure it is on the same
page. Add one sentence to reflect
Township’s position. Signage: wants to make sure it is compatible with
signage ordinances or how it isn’t. It
doesn’t talk about screening about HVAC on roof or on ground. This may be in the ordinance form. There are additional recycling, and want to
make sure the dumpsters are addressed.
On page 42, parking at grade structure, is prohibited. What does this mean? Residential component: it didn’t say maximum and/or minimum, only
gave ratio. It is supposed to be
maximum number. Didn’t talk about
school children and was no restriction on number of bedrooms. Mr. Burgis:
there is case law that doesn’t permit that. In fact, with the upcoming COAH rule, there will be a 20% set-aside,
and now says that affordable units have to be 3 bedroom units. Montville has a surplus and if a development
comes into fruition, can we work with this.
We are not trying to create children in a transit community. Mr. Burgis will review. Is there any possibility that some of the
housing can be transferred to Jacksonville Road vs. just core? Mr.
Burgis: there is height
limitation, and is this feasible. On
residential, on page 9 of ordinance, talks about reduction in parking, transit
friendly, RSIS of 35%. She indicated
she wouldn’t want to see reduction in these standards. Township, per Mr. Burgis, is not obligated,
and would prefer that this not be reflected.
We have RSIS standards exceeded throughout the community, and can’t
imagine that type of reduction in RSIS in residential section. Item No. 3C responds to this under parking.
Mr. Speciale: had a comment about
signs. In concept drawing, pole signs,
would like to see poles have banner bracket since it would be a good concept
and pick one design that matches train and use brackets, and it doesn’t hold
signs straight. Mr. Daughtry: the decorative poles that the township would
maintain, and moving towards an approved pole, and not sure there is bracket,
and another layer of same issue. Those
in public ROW Township is required to maintain. If on private property, lighting is not a problem. How do you make it match?
Ms. Nielson: talking about
municipal parking lot, how do you get from parking lot over to the shops, would
there be off-site contribution? Can be
more explicit to get from point A to point B, and would like to see the parking
lot funded and addressed, understanding there would have to be a pedestrian
system.
Tricia Quatrone, not clear on how many floors we are looking at? Can board respond? Mr. Burgis: two floors
with 45 apartments. Residential units
are on second floor. Mr. Daughtry: current applicant won’t necessarily be
building 45 units in this area. 45 is
the total for the whole zone. Her
comments related to the school children and this area, noting the traffic in
the morning trying to get up to the corner of Changebridge and Rt. 202, along
with the school bus stops in middle of parking lot to get to Valley View
School. Isn’t traffic going to be an
issue?
Carol Bella, Jacksonville Road:
concerns about students and kids and families that will move in, and we
should be concerned about school impact.
Mr. Daughtry: stated the
residents are correct on addressing concerns relative to the student population
in town as to where the town is going.
Even with aged restricted housing, typically what happens is the
population increasing will be from any development in Montville. There is a large influx in the schools and
there are cycles, but is a larger issue town wide.
Mr. Lewis: in other developments,
though, there are recreational facilities and are not large units associated
with it, but whether it is two or three bedrooms, he indicated that he remembered
there are solid planning numbers from this type of development relative to
traditional development is fractional, noting that these numbers are low
numbers in generating children for school systems.
Mr. Burgis: agreed, indicating he conducted studies on some of these
transit village developments and research findings determine that the numbers
are consistent across the board. There
is an average of about 1 public school child for every 10 units. This doesn’t mean only 4-5 kids and may get
more, but typically by the time they get to 3-4 yrs, they move up and want
backyards vs. this type of development.
Number of public school number is small, not a large number in total,
mayor is right that there is that backflow, and they are moving out of detached
units to these units. Unfortunately not
good data to objectively say this is ratio.
We do know that in looking at a lot of these different developments end
up being occupied by people who already lived in municipality. Numbers are consistent as to ratios
regardless of the type of municipality’s income.
Shery Train, Pomono Avenue – anyone know what kind of apartments this
would be, and what would it cost, and what types of people would move into
these apartments. Do substitute
teaching in school, believe Rachel Gardens has a lot of children in school from
this development. Feels there would be
impact to school.
Ms. Nielson: There have a lot of
apartments and is developed for children at Rachel Gardens. This type of transit facility is not
designed to attract families, and more young professionals involved. These are more commuters and are designed to
accommodate this.
Mr. Burgis: demographics for these
transit villages suggest young professionals and empty nesters and not that
many families because of design of family.
The application that was made was related to high end luxury
apartments.
Mr. Daughtry: believe he
originally had more unit than what in line with master plan. What we did as a community, we don’t want
this density, and he changed plan to make bigger units. We need to give additional guidance, then we
have more units and/or denser in his development. Mr. Burgis: top number is
45.
Ms. Train: there was a lot of
resistance to any residential developments.
Mr. Burgis: we were not original
planner involved, and when reviewing this information, one of the information
things in the original grant required residential component. Mr. Daughtry: prior township committee and talked of grant process and because
of résistance, but because this grant was applied for, residential units was
required. Mr. Burgis: state is actively encouraging any development
around train stations. Mr. Burgis
elaborated about State’s position about development around existing
development, train station, and reinforces idea of preserving open space. They are doing it through monies. They are saying if you want aid for a whole
variety of things, this is what you must do.
In reality, State does say if you seek monies for infra structure, by
doing this, you get extra points in the matter of how much monies go to a
municipality for infrastructure improvement (i.e. sewer lines/water
lines). This is what a municipality has
to do today. If we weren’t to apply for
this, we would get certain credits when limited monies are given out for school
improvements.
Mr. Rosellini: how many square
miles? Mr. Burgis: it is a limited area of about 13 acres. These units are second story train station
for commuters and are not child friendly units. The push for this was more for a downtown development, and this
was the only way to do it for any developer, and this was the only viable way
to make this downtown area. You talk
about traffic on Jacksonville Road, and when you left for work in morning,
traffic was built up. Traffic is still
bad in area, but this is not the type of area that attracts children. This is not that type of amenity. Mr. Burgis:
also allows for office use on a second floor also. Mr. Rosellini: it will be market driven as to what the rent will be. If there are good shops downstairs, will be
a demand. Study showed us that the
people coming are going to be local people and not out of town people coming to
this area.
Tricia Quatrone. 4 Majorica Road
–understands grant was go do a study for a down town area. They would want to see an ideal
village. Mr. Lewis: it is our town. Every single parent when they hear there is an opportunity to
take this area and make it something that the township would be able to use and
make it proud of, a great idea and that it is limited. Ms. Quantrone: she lives in Towaco? She
is affected. Where are these
people? If they are that interested,
why are they not participating?
There will be a public hearing on this in January 24th, 7:30pm.
Motion to close to public made by Gary Lewis, Seconded by John Rosellini,
Roll call: unanimous
Mrs. White will send out postcards for adoption of master plan, a block
notice and will put master plan on web and some notice on request for
participation and input.
Impact Ordinance – General Discussion/Review -
rescheduled to Master Plan hearing night
PGDP07-15 – Pine
Brook Realty, 12 Rt. 46, B: 160, L: 4 –rezoning request for FAR% increase –
Old Bloomfield Ave.
Stephen Schepis,
Esq. Applicant requested relief of B3
zone as to redevelopment of Pine Brook motel site. The car wash site will be part of the site to provide that the
zoning will eliminate the 25% FAR maximum, and both sites will be
implemented. Also owns Evergreen Realty
site. Applicant is asking for rising of
FAR. Applicant is seeking a 33% FAR in
the B3 zone. He noted that this
application will require other variances.
By modifying this ordinance, applicant will still need bulk relief. When last here, the planner was requested by
board to provide additional information on the data he submitted along with Rt.
46 zone. Applicant engaged services of
Peter Steck. With assistance of his
staff, took all planning board and zoning board data, and/or tax assessor
record, and compiled this into a report.
From this report, the majority of the properties are in non-compliance
with coverage. Site adjacent has FAR
variances and coverage’s variances. There
is no statutory requirement to provide an FAR.
Provide all the other bulks will meet and control building. Rt. 46 was looked at along with I zone, and
it was determined that a number of these sites needed redevelopment. Mr. Schepis made reference to the Rt. 46
Revitalization, mentioned Pine Brook motel, Sunset, GI. By modifying the zoning ordinances to allow
33% or eliminate it, you will further this revitalization of Rt. 46. This type of modification spurs
redevelopment.
Client looked at
parking analysis. Discussion ensued on
the issue the Board is facing this evening.
Mr. Burgis summarized indicating he spoke with Mr. Steck, and reviewed
data that he presented, and found three pieces of information that would be
significant to you: average is 25%
where 35%; FAR average is 21% and proposing 35%. Data doesn’t support what is being stipulated. In an effort to improve this property and
get something compatible, we c could make certain adjustments, not just
broad-brush the FAR relief. If the applicant
was to reduce his request, he would be within the Board’s jurisdiction. Other properties and their data supplied by
applicant really don’t support the applicant’s position. There should be some sense of balance
between floor and spaced size in content to what ordinance permits and what the
neighborhood is. The average is
21%. Even with impervious average is
79% and applicant is asking for 90%.
Mr. Karkowsky: major problem
with this concept as to size/relationship to lot.
Mr. Rosellini: this is rezoning only. He also feels the plan is overbuilt. Look at the one on Rt. 3. This is an incentive to remove motel. Concern would be: at 25% and looking for 33%, and would like to work together on
this. Have a hard problem on this
layout.
Mr. Lewis: bulk of these properties indicate that a lot
of these properties are one story buildings, and start to wonder what the
values of FAR is if the bulk of building is only one story, and do you have
same import to this as opposed to Towaco/GI?
Mr. Burgis: there are other
alternatives to regulating thru imposition of property building and impervious
building, landscape. One of the
critical elements, this board would take jurisdiction on this project. Mr. Lewis:
if you had no FAR, and you have a 30’ limitation, there is no way it is
more than 2 story, with 20% max lot coverage and all you can get is 2 stories,
with worst possible case would be 40% FAR.
If you use these as your measuring sticks and use building coverage,
parking, less excited about FAR. Is
this real? For this zone? There is relevance in other districts. Think it has merit. Has a long way to go. Mr. Burgis:
FAR is a real way to get a good handle on what floor space is. Where you are trying to get properties to be
redevelop, found that it is a hindered of redevelopment. Once you exceed an FAR, you have to prove special
reasons, etc. Ms. Nielson: asked for additional supplementary data, and
don’t have such a report, and concern is we should have a comprehensive
analysis. Mr. Burgis can conduct such a
study. We have enough data to do this
up front. Have a stronger sense and
comfortable with looking at this corridor.
We haven’t even looked at east bound side. The characteristics of this side are unique. This could stand on its own.
Mr. Omland: understand there is information being handed
out. Agree with FAR. He is troubled with coverage. If we are going to deal with C variances, it
is an easier case. He is concerned with
waiving FAR since he comments are parking.
This is safety. These issues are
more safety related, and overflow would be on Bloomfield, Changebridge, who
knows where it would go. We need to
know parking since this is troubling.
Some information was to be offered on parking this evening. From standpoint of reviewing this, where are
there parking studies, and can board’s professionals comply with this. Mr.
Lipari: would want to see all this
information before applicant can go forward.
Mr. Karkowsky: there is a
handout that needs to be digested. Mr.
Burgis: can meet prior to the next
meeting and correlate this information into the analysis, including the same
approach on parking where our parking numbers vs. real numbers.
Mr. Burgis: had a conversation with Mr. Steck: parking issues relating to other properties
in the area also. Mr. Lipari: once this information is gathered, maybe it
would be a good idea to come before site plan/subdivision committee and reduce
time period in order to make a more condensed package compared to this
evening. Mr. Burgis indicated he would
get some information out as to what data he would want to support further
reviews, i.e, number of parking spaces, building height of all the other
properties. This matter was carried with notice to January 24th
agenda, 2008.
Update PGDP07-14 Montville Lifestyle Center –
Changebridge/Kramer – B: 138, L: 11 and 10.3 – Rezoning from I to Retail use – Cost
Proposal from J. Burgis Review
Proposal
discussed. $5,000 is adequate since Mr.
Burgis already has a lot of data in this area available. Mr. Lewis feels this discussion will be
detailed and wants to make sure board has benefit of best information
available. These reports will be
separate from master plan. If there are
inconsistencies with master plan, he would obviously discuss this with
board. Applicant will be advised as to
how much monies he will be requested to submit in view of his request.
Update on Highlands
Mapping – Stan Omland, PE
It went public on
website: will review at next
meeting Mr. Daughtry asked that we put the Highland’s link on our
website. Mrs. White will coordinate.
Review of Annual
Report; 2008 Budget & Meeting Dates – will have completed by January 10,
2008 meeting.
Discussion of setting
of subcommittee meeting for rezoning of a rezoning request for lands mentioned
behind Raia’s/Schroth’s.
Mrs. White was
instructed to wait until the meetings with Mr. Barile and his work has more
information so that we can meet as a subcommittee with all parties
involved. As indicated earlier, Mr.
Barile is reaching out to County, JCP&L for input. Mrs. White asked to be kept appraised so
that she could continue to coordinate/monitor.
Ms. Nielson indicated that in this case the road issues must be
addressed up front. As soon as we know this
is viable, then we can set this up as a formal rezoning, take in escrows,
etc.
RESOLUTIONS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
None
WAIVERS
PMISC07-38
Pottery Creations – 28 Rt. 46 – B: 176, L:
4.3 – Paint Your Own pottery – 1,080 s.f. - 2 employees – hours of operation
10am-8pm 7 days – signage to be in compliance with approved theme (Tiffany
Plaza)
Motion by: John Rosellini,
Seconded by: Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
Approved subject to compliance with use letter, all agency findings and
sign theme
PMISC07-40 In
Creations Fred Astaire Dance Studio – 2
Changebridge Rd. – B: 44, L; 1 – 3,496 s.f. – hours of operation 1PM-10PM
Mon-Fri; 10AM-3PM Sat – 2 Employees – signage to be in compliance with approved
theme (Rensellear)
Approved subject to compliance with use letter, all agency findings and
sign theme
Motion by:Russ Lipari l
Seconded by: Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
PMISC07-39
Phoenix Marketing – 54 Indian Ln E – B: 32, L:
15.1 – installation of a 7,100 s.f. storage cage in order to store certain
control substances in the existing building -
- no other change in operation
Approved subject to compliance with use letter, all agency findings and
sign theme
Motion by: John Rosellini
Seconded by: Russ Lipari
Roll call: Unanimous
Note:
Mr. Daughtry abstained
PMISC07-41
Jake Bakes – 45 Indian Ln. E – B: 32,
L: 20 – 475 s.f. office/storage 361 s.f. bakery operation for wholesale bakery
only – 2 employees – 7am-5pm Mon-Fri – no signage
Motion by: John Rosellini
Seconded by: Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
Approved subject to compliance with use letter, all agency findings and
sign theme
MINUTES
Minutes of 11-19-07 – Marie Kull,
Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Russ Lipari, Tony
Speciale, Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry
Motion by: Art Daughtry
Seconded by: Gary Lewis
Roll call: Unanimous
INVOICES
Burgis Assoc. – O/E for $630;
Trust for: $2,801.25 (GI), $620, $831.25,
$620, $270, $120, $90, $250, $180, $330, $75
Michael Carroll, Esq. –
Litigation for: $125, $250; Trust for: $30, $60, $90,
$240, $90, $30, $90, $210, $150, $30, $30,
$60, $30, $30, $30,
$90, $120, $240, $30, $60, $870, $30, $60,
$60, $480, $90, $60, $90
Omland Engineering – o/e FOR: $120; Trust
for: $1,080 (Boiling Springs), $60, $270,
$60, $120, $180, $480, $150, $60, $90, $180,
$60, $990, $90,
$390, $360, $360, $120
Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $187.50,
$1,425 (K&S)
Bricker & Assoc – Trust for: $840, $1,320
(Keating)
Motion by: Larry Hines
Seconded by: Russ Lipari
Roll call: Unanimous
LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS
V&L
Associates, B: 81, L: 7 – Rt. 202 – Stan Omland summarized that this is a new application,
was formally the affordable house site,
and is not located in a business zone, so apparently there will be a new
development application coming in to the town in the future. Mrs. White was advised to make sure
Enviornmental Commission gets a copy of
this.
B : 59.02, L : 26 – Morris
Canil, LLC – LOI – Summarized that this is the site of the rezoning request for
aged restricted housing and the by-pass roadway. Mr. Omland noted that there is only isolated wetlands small and
land is basically unemubered by environmetnal constraints. That LOI was issued.
OLD BUSINESS
PSPP/FC/PMN07-08 KEATING, Wm. – 137 Rt. 202 – B: 51, L: 33 & 28 – Prel/final site plan/minor
subdivision with variances for medical office – Carried from 10-25-07 meeting Eligible: Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Russ
Lipari, Antony Speciale, Gary Lewis and Leigh Witty, John Rosellini
Note: Mr. Karkowsky, Mr.
Daughtry and Mr. Hines left meeting
Mark Brancato, Esq.
present
Hank Huelsebusch, PE acting as Board engineer
Board professionals were
sworn by Mr. Carroll.
Mark Walker, PE. Plans were revised indicating that the majority
of revisions on plans were technical comments, and issues board wants to talk
about. Posted on here are exhibits A1
dated 10-25-07. Loading space
discussed. He indicated his prior
testimony was that there was no need for a loading space. Parking spaces that were impacted by this
loading dock are designated as employees only.
This is not removed from variance request. No problem with the sign.
This was previously testified to and Mr. Burgis found acceptable.
Basement was calculated
in as FAR% coverage, not entire area, just area subject to use. The original calculations are in plans, but
as indicated not the whole basement were calculated towards FAR%. The only issue on the signage in report was
the rationale. With respect to the
sign, Mr. Brancato reminded Board; his architect was also a planner and gave
testimony. The other issue is the two
signs on the building which was depicted on architectural plan on porch area to
delineate office building entrances.
Applicant indicated
they will comply with all agency reports issued, except for asking for a waiver
from compliance with the HPRC report. He
indicated that they had a good meeting with the HPRC as it respects to the
artifacts. The HPRC requested a 30’
buffer off the rear property line. In
the meeting they suggested that they compromised and get a 20’ buffer and he
indicated he would discuss this with the engineer. Met with Mr. Walker, reviewed plan and reviewed conceptual ideas,
and in order to provide 20’ buffer applicant would need to move over 10’ and
would lost 6 parking spaces that are up against the building towards the
office, brining it down to 37 spaces.
While it is possible to do that, technical, this would not be a viable
manner to develop the site. He agreed
to no plantings along property line, providing easement, signage, documenting
existing building, but one thing not to do would be provide buffer and this
cannot be done without significant compromise.
Mr. Lewis: was happy to
see they met with HPRC on this, and there are some things that will implement
our goals.
Kathy Fisher: Chairperson of HPRC testified that the canal
runs over the property, one map was done in l890 map; another met in l977, DOT
involved in Rt. 202 and overlays were done under 106 regulations as they had to
do a study, and at that time, they laid it over the canal property, matched it
to the tax map, and looked at raceway, tunnel, and could see tax map was not
correct, then they took a Morris county aerial map which resulting in the
finding that the town map was not correct.
The canal crosses the property in this area. We can’t say how much it is running over the property, so HRPC
settled on asking for 20’.
Ms. Nielson: asked applicant if he reviewed the drawings
Ms. Fisher referenced. Mr.
Brancato: he provided photographs of
site to board indicating how difficult it is to determine incline area and it
is not clearly delineated on Rt. 202. Ms.
Brancato indicated he has this map which referenced it was superimposed but the
problem with this is that the last line, depicted relationship/data is not reliable. Understand difficulty with mapping this
out. If you were dealing with a large piece
of property, a 10’ buffer is not a problem.
Ms. Nielson: have you determined by on site data, visual
inspection if it is on your property?
Mr. Walker: there are no
physical features or incline plane behind and/or on property. The road that is being discussed is 90’ away
from property line. Either road was
incline plane or between road and house but he can’t make this analysis since nothing
definitive is shown?
Mr. Lipari: were you asked to look at 10’? Mr. Walker:
they have. Probably can do 10’
but if you go to 20’, you lose parking spaces and it would also create a
nuisance and/or inconvenience for the building design.
Mr. Rosellini: in reviewing the canal, the HPRC is trying t
o get 30’ on all canal properties to maintain and preserve this area. This canal is plain, and some pieces of the
canal are in the back of the woods. The
HPRC came back with some suggestions, indicating they would be supportive of
any variances for a parking variance in order to get the extra buffer. This board looked at future parking issues, not
knowing if we would build out and location of future parking shown but in this,
,the final issue becomes: are we trying
to squeeze too much building on the one lot, what if it were 8,000 vs 8,500 sq.
ft., will all variances disappear? He
summarized that he felt the HPRC was fair, and is disappointed that it didn’t
work out. Applicant would want to
continue with 10’ buffer.
Mr. Brancata: are concerned with making sure canal won’t
be disturbed during construction. Will
install silt fencing where canal is supposed to be.
Ms. Nielson: concern is:
is it on the property, and how far is it on this property. The issue is ‘can you determine’ or do some archeology
studies prior to construction to ensure no problem with it as is. If there is some archeology artifacts, how
is this done? Kathy Fisher talked
about a Phase 1B study?
Mr. Lipari noted this site
was developed already and was a new building and disturbance happened in this
area by Caravella?
Mr. Walker was asked
how far this site could go. Mr.
Rosellini: worried about
precedent. They were in front of HPRC
and there was a concern that came up, and worried about compromise. Ms. Nielson: more concerned with what is in the ground and subsurface. There is no canal here. Mr. Huelsebusch. Believe you can get a 15’ separation, and could relocate utility
poles slightly. Ms. Fisher: can we do
this and get the Phase I archeology study?
The applicant has done things to meet the HPRC and compromise. This site is conforming. If you look at photographs, it is overgrown
wood, and may be covered with leaves and garbage and homes that utility the tow
path, is owned by town. If township will ask for a buffer, there has
to be some code that the applicant must meet.
There has to be lines to depict.
There is no canal. Client
suffers from edge of incline.
Discussion ensued on report from HPRC.
Mr. Brancato indicated that these maps are not reliable for this burden
to be placed on this applicant.
Applicant has done a lot of work on this project. It is clear that this won’t be able to be
done; noting making building smaller is not a predictable outcome and is
arbitrary since there is no clear line on this.
Mr. Lewis: is there anything the applicant can do, how
far back can the applicant go out and shore up and try to recreate? That buffer means less to him than being
able to take boy scouts or something like that on a trail and being able to
point out something of value and/or history.
Ms. Fisher indicated they have a study in l977, it was discovered that
the weir map accurately depicts property.
This is only way t o know how much.
Can have signage but would prefer that you stay away from the canal and
have something to recreate an area later.
Ms. Nielson agreed with Mr. Lewis.
What does it accomplish?
Mrs. Fisher indicated there are artifacts in the
canal area. Mr. Rosellini: if this is mapped out and canal is actually
on his property, what then? Our
engineer is indicating we can get 14 to 15’ and could move parking around
resulting in some parking closer to building, etc., why not ask for this. Mr. Lipari:
if this was to be done, what can be done? Mr. Walker: reduction of
space between the buildings. You could
shift 4’ away from parking, front parking stalls closer to the road. Move easterly space and utility pole which serves
neighborhood to east. He can relocate
this though to the west. Mr. Lipari
would like to see this small contribution or historical society. Applicant agreed to all other comments in
reports. Mr. Brancato indicated his client would also agree to a contribution,
depending on what this amount is, to be used for displaying the artifacts in a
monument, they would also agree to do the work and clean up this area on town
property.
Mr. Brancato indicated
he agreed to the HPRC signage as acceptable.
He agreed to elimination of plantings in rear, and agreed to clean
underbrush property about 10’; cut down underbrush. You have a clean swap. Client would submit $5,000 for restoration
and bonding to ensure compliance with HRPC report. Questions ensued on possibility of creating a redevelopment fund
for canal. Ms. Nielson elaborated on a
concept of preserving historical integrity.
Mr. Carroll suggested this be
done at this time in the form of a developer’s agreement which satisfies the
governing body.
Mr. Huelsebusch: can add to maintenance of drainage structures
on site. Mr. Brancato indicated he
would agree to amend drainage maintenance plan to include language involving
maintenance of the 10’ buffer on municipal
property, would work with township on a monument erected on site, and would
agree to the performance guarantee post to ensure completion in accordance with
testimony and HPRC findings. Mr.
Carroll will make sure resolution has a statement in that the board does not
impose the condition, but it is a justification for relief due to harmful
affects.
Ms. Nielson: eliminating southern landscaping, with
frontage on Kokora and are facing woods and will be looking into a parking lot
and would want to see landscaping larger to protect residents. Mr. Rosellini: was concerned about root structure. Put a 4’ decorative
fence with decorative plantings.
Ms. Fisher indicated
this was acceptable. Discussion
ensued. Put details into Developer’s
Agreement. Mr. Speciale: is this precedence. Mr. Carroll: voluntary agreement for potential harm done, and is not a
precedent, and is not something that would go with all lands. Mr. Lewis: if applicant supplied 20’
easement, then this wouldn’t be under discussion.
Ms. Nielson: concerns about other physicians, and have
two different standards vs. medical clinics vs. sole proprietor. Want assurances that this site plan clearly
reflect it is not a medical clinic.
Want to protect issues in the future, and would wants this clear in any
resolutions.
Mr. Brancato indicated
that his is not a clinic and testified to it.
It will be the same type of practice.
If use changes, then it would be subject to further testimony and
review, and this application determines this is a medical office. Mr. Burgis will put this in updated zoning
ordinance.
Pinto recycling has
additional requirements on local businesses and some of the dumpsters are not
accurate. Make sure there is no more
than what is shown on this site. They
are no longer required to comingle.
Mr. Carroll indicated
he would fashion the resolution to make sure of the fencing reviews and
security lighting agreed to. Marked in
HPRC Exhibit A1 – HPRC mapping dated
12/12/07
Opened to public
Dave Cox, 17 Kokora
Avenue
Said there were artifacts
behind canal and asked if residents in the area would be subject to this same
regulation from HPRC?
Asked about lighting
and timing: responded 15’ shoebox
lights with security lighting after 9PM. Other lights would be off.
Ms. Nielson: residential
homes are long and narrow, and if there is an expansion, the expansion wouldn’t
be close to canal.
No further public. Closed in a motion by: John Rosellini and seconded by Tony
Speciale. Roll call: unanimous
Motion to grant
preliminary/final site plan, all variances,
waivers and exceptions agreed to, compliance with all conditions,
testimony of record, compliance with drainage master plan/monument
signs/developer’s agreement and mechanism to handle arch; hours of operation,
compliance with all agency findings.
Mr. Lewis: think this is an ideal process to further and
advance the benefits and interests of the community. Didn’t have this last meeting and thank applicant and
professionals for moving this further, and furtherance of canal history.
Motion by: John Rosellini
Seconded by: Tony Speciale
Roll call: Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini,
Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty, Russ Lipari
NEW BUSINESS
PMSP/F07-12 K & S at MONTVILLE – 49 Old Lane – B: 39.07, L: 2 –
6 Single Family Lots - Notice
Acceptable ACT BY: 1/10/08
OFF Reschedule
to:
1-10-08 w/notice
PSPP/FC07-09 –
BOILING SPRINGS SAVINGS BANK – Site Plan & variance application – 446
& 448 Rt. 202, Lots 78.01 & 78.02, B: 39.11 – Notice Acceptable ACT
BY: 1/15/08
Due to time
constraints, application carried with notice preserved to: January 10, 2008
PMS/C 07-18 – BEYER BROS. CORP.- 57 Route 46 East, Block 184, Lot 2 Site
Plan & Variances - Notice
Acceptable TENTATIVE
OFF
Rescheduled to:
1-24-08
Motion to adjourn made
by Gary Lewis, Seconded by John Rosellini
Unanimously accepted.
Meeting Adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. White
Certified to
missed meeting of 10-25-07
|
