PB Minutes 12-12-07 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

Minutes of December 12, 2007


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







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.   



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. 



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. 






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 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


                        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


                        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. 


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


Rescheduled to:


Motion to adjourn made by Gary Lewis, Seconded by John Rosellini

Unanimously accepted.

Meeting Adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

With explanation

Certified to missed meeting of 10-25-07


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack