MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF JANUARY
Mr. Rosellini - present Mr.
Karkowsky - present
Ms. Kull - present Mr.
Daughtry - present
Ms. Nielson - present Mr.
Visco - present
Mr. Lipari - present Mr.
Lewis - present
Mr. Hines – present Mr.
Witty (alt#2) – present
(Alt #1) – present
Stan Omland, PE
Michael Carroll, Esq.
Joseph Burgis, AICP
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Appointment of Temporary
Chairman – Russ Lipari
Appointment of Chairman
– Ladis Karkowsky
Appointment of Vice
Chairman – Russ Lipari
Appointment of Secretary
– Linda White
Adoption of Rules
& Regulations/By-Laws – no changes
Adoption of Annual
Report – adopted unanimously
Meeting Nights 7:30PM
January 11, 2007 July
January 25, 2007 July
February 8, 2007 August
February 22, 2007 August
March 8, 2007 September
March 22, 2007 September
April 12, 2007 October
April 26, 2007 October
May 10, 2007 November
May 24, 2007 November
19, 2007* (Monday)
June 14, 2007 December
June 28, 2007 January
Designation of Official
Newspaper for Legal
The Daily Record &
The Citizen (for publication purposes)
Following professionalappointments unanimously adopted:
Attorney/Execution of Professional Services Agreement – Michael Carroll, Esq.
Appointment of Board
Planner & Execution of Professional Services Agreement – Joseph
Burgis, AICP, PP
Appointment of Board
Engineer & Execution of Professional Services Agreement – Stan Omland,
PE – Omland Engineering
appointments made by Chairman Karkowsky:
of Adjustment – Larry Hines
b) Board of Health – Leigh Witty
c) Environmental Commission – Marie Kull
d) Water & Sewer – Larry Hines
Preservation Commission – John Rosellini, Art Daughtry
f) DRC – Marie Kull
g) Site Plan/Subdivision Committee – Russ Lipari Chair, Ladis
Karkowsky, John Rosellini, Deborah Nielson, & John Visco (alt)
h) Regional Drainage Study Committee – Russ
Lipari, Ladis Karkowsky
i) Traffic & Traffic Subcommittee – Russ Lipari
Development Committee – Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale
k) Open Space
Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, John Rosellini
l) Master Plan/COAH 3rd
Round – Ladis Karkowsky, John Rosellini, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis
m) Cross Acceptance Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari
n) Highlands Legislation Review Committee – Gary Lewis - Discussion
ensued on this subject. Mr.
Omland prepared a memo that highlights some of the concerns. This subject was discussed later in
meeting. Mr. Karkowsky indicated that
he thought it important that we have a member of the board reviewing this
legislation, and indicated that should Mr. Lewis have any questions on this
subject, to call and discuss these direct with Mr. Omland.
PMISC06-51 – Mindy Realty – Real Estate Offices @ 150
River Road H4 Unit; Block 123, Lot: 21 – 2 employees – 500 sq. ft. Area
Approved unanimously in a motion by John Rosellini, Seconded
by: Russ Lipari subject to compliance with all agency findings, sign
theme. Roll call vote: unanimous
PMISC06-52 – Winebow, Inc – First Industrial tenancy
– 20 Hook Mountain Road, Units 101 A&B – wine imports/warehousing/distribution
– 24 hour operation; 78 employees – Office use of 13,666 sf and warehousing of
183,256 sf. – General Notice Provided
Linda White summarized prior tenancy under Bergen Brunswick
and noise issues at that time, resulting in installation of sound walls,
mitigating noise in loading dock areas, and restrictions imposed on shipping
Ted Eichorn, Esq. – present on behalf of First Industrial
Paul DeLuca, VP of operations testified: they have an operation in Hohokus, which
business involves wholesale wine distribution.
This location is their major wine distribution facility. They are asking for approval here since they
need a larger facility and more space.
The operation consists of storage of wine, loading and delivery. The entire building consists of 200,000 sq.
ft. of area.
During day, there will be deliveries. This is third party trucking
operations. Operations will be towards
the end of the facility. Deliveries
from tractor-trailers will be during the day.
Other vans will park and unload in the two areas depicted on plan shown.
There are 30 employees per shift with office and
warehouse. Deliveries will be packed
and loaded off site. There will be
employee vans and box trucks. During
the day, the box trucks will be parked on westerly side of building facing Hook
Mountain. These are loaded from 8PM
till 3AM. During a busy season, the
same trucks will be used, but they may add two or more trucks. There is no idling of trucks at all, even
when loading. Vendors and employees
will park on the Rt. 80 side of the building.
There will be approximately 25 trucks parked along Hook
Mountain Road side. Glenn Buie: reminded the Planning Board that landscaping
was put in there to buffer. They would
add more in these areas. These trucks
are loaded and then moved back into parking area for delivery.
Russ Lipari: what
type of trucks bring wine? Mr. DeLuca:
tractor-trailers. There are 25 company
trucks that are straight jobs. These
will run during course of day. How many
trucks are coming in during this operation?
Daytime receiving operations are from 8AM to 3:30PM. And they received
around 6 tractor-trailer loads.
When loading, the two loading doors are used and these will
be the area they are working at night on in order to prepare their trucks for
next morning. The wines are hand loaded
at night. Straight trucks are at 20’
and are the largest size they use.
Loading is all done by hand. The
operator has relocated the loading operation as far away as possible.
Marie Kull: confirm
there are two different shifts running.
Mr. DeLuca indicated that once trucks go out and come back, to they go
out with another load. At loading dock,
once all loaded, they are shut down.
confirm there are no fork trucks?
Reminded board of the history on this site from prior years noting the
concerns from residents relative to this noise. He indicated at that time the backup alarms were taken off and
changed to flashing lights. When it
gets quiet down there, noise travels.
Under state law, noise decimals cannot exceed 60 decimals. Winebow is taking area for Bergen
Brunswick. Make sure there is a designated
parking area well marked. Mr. DeLuca
was told that there are concerns about trucks coming in too early and idling
and making noise.
understand tractor-trailers are coming during the day, noting that there
was a letter given to us from Hohokus Police Chief noting the noise issues they
had with the 80,000 sq. ft. facility located on Rt. 17 Hollywood Avenue in
Hohokus, one comment was pertaining to complaints about trucks idling in the
early hours of the AM. Mr. Buie: indicated that during his tenure, he hasn’t
received one negative thing about this operation First Industrial site. Discussion ensued on noise mitigation.
Larry Hines: asked if there were bulk wine. Mr. DeLuca:
There are all cases of wine.
There is high-end type of liquor.
This facility is totally air-conditioned.
Mr. Speciale: there
is 35 loading docks with 12 of which create that high exposure to
residents. His concerns relate to
restricting themselves to the deliveries to the other side of building and
restrict these 12 docks from being used.
Deborah Nielson: suggest
location of trucks that are parked be subject to a field inspection and
John Rosellini: is
he willing to restrict himself to two loading docks, and be subject to field
location of parking of trucks. These
have to be screened and safe ingress/egress.
Opened to residents
Don Crane – 54 Maple Avenue
Concerns are noise – keep operation in this area far away
from residents to minimize impact to their qualify of life.
Mr. Buie: a noise expert was retained and will discuss this
T. Lizza – Maple Avenue – concerns with noise. He indicated that he would want the board to
assure that there is beeper and noise mitigation put in place. There is a nice landscaping buffer. Aesthetics are great. Noise barrier is not a great noise
buffer. Restrict noise. Also voiced concerns on early morning
garbage dumpster noises.
Janet Koskove - Maple Avenue – area where they load will
keep noise away from the people away from people that live on Maple Avenue but
she lives on corner of Hook Mountain Road and box trucks will be in full view
of her home and there is no landscaping to minimize this impact. There is a straight view of parking lot in
this area. First Industrial has been a
good neighbor, but she is very concerned about noise. Tenant does not control the tractor-trailers. They belong to a third party and they don’t
control what is going on in this type of situation. Reason why there are not complaints is that people complain so
long, nothing happens and it still goes on.
The trucks still idle and parking is still being done
without control. Truck drivers honk
their air horns when leaving. The
tractor-trailers over shoot the driveways, and realized it when they hit
adjacent property. They go down Hook
Mountain Road and/or they drive thru residential area and this has cause damage
to the existing Belgium block curbing in these areas. They stop between this property and Mary Street and decide to
back up to driveways. Accidents occur
this way. Don’t know why buildings echo
sound but the sound created between buildings becomes louder. They back into rubberized lands and make
sounds. There are alarms that sound
frequently, cleaning crew and employee’s alarms and security alarms. They clean dumpsters at 5AM. It is metal on metal. Snow plows noise and street cleaning when
there are few cars around, noting holidays and evenings. Landscaping crews work well past dinner
hour. She summarized: If Bergen Brunswick is leaving, you can
prevent a 24-hour operation in this site.
Don’t allow this facility to operate this long.
David Demarest, Maple Avenue – Applicant indicated there
will be approximately 28 trucks, voicing concerns that the level of loading
that will go on will exceed what is customary at this site now as it relates to
length of time and operation. Concerned
about level of sound. Operations will
be increased, and what is anticipated when entire space is utilized.
Site plan subcommittee should inspect existing facility and
also review landscaping at Ms. Kosgrove’s house.
Gary Lewis voiced concerns that this type of tenant
occupancy should be thru a minor site plan filing since there are concerns
about noise and would like to have more detailed a site plan drawing to make
sure these concerns are addressed.
Mr. Buie indicated that they did hire a noise expert on the
issue of noise. Mr. Lewis indicated
that he would also like to have made available a performance measurement on the
HVAC system measured at the property line now and a summary of what would be
installed as a function of this application in the future.
John Rosellini – Based on concerns of the residents and the
input the Board received from the new tenancy this evening, this type of
activity is best reviewed with a formal site plan process requiring full sized
whatever area is decided and it is the best location for this use, you
must remember that there needs to be enough area for emergency services/fire
Mr. Buie: air
conditioning is a pre-existing situation.
They are not going to change sizes of existing units and there is
screening in place.
concerns of the residents have to be taken into consideration. It appears they are taking 98% of this
building with a long-term lease.
Perhaps they should consider moving two loading bays to highway side of
building? Mr. Buie indicated that the
interior is laid out in such a way it would be difficult to respond to this
change. Mr. Buie indicated that they also
intended to put up a sound wall. Art
Daughtry: right now this area is designed
for offices, noting they want to a sound wall up, feeling very strongly that
these issues have to be addressed.
Russ Lipari: have
serious concerns without having our board’s professional’s input/review. Ms. White indicated that this type of application
couldn’t be entertained as a waiver.
That the applicant will need to provide expert reports to the board’s
professionals in order to allow them adequate time to inspect and review site.
It was moved that this matter be rescheduled to January 25th
meeting of board requesting that the applicant submit a site plan filing along
with all documents relative to any upgrades and/or changes this tenant would
consider on this existing site. All
documents must be sent to board professionals no less than ten days prior to a
scheduled hearing, and if there are any variances created as a result of sound
wall, then the applicant would have to comply with MLUL notice requirements vs
P/FSP00-04 – MONTVILLE OFFICE PLAZA – 330 Changebridge
Road – B: 156, L: 30 – landscaping & minor site upgrades – Amended
Resolution – Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deborah Nielson, John
Visco, Steve Moscone, Jim Glick, Larry Hines, Leigh Witty – Adopted unanimously
in a motion by John Visco, Seconded by: Deborah Nielson. Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull,
Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Larry Hines, and Leigh Witty
PMS06-27 858 ROUTE
202 ASSOCIATES, LLC - 858 Rt. 202 - B: 110, L: 17.01 –
Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull,
Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Russ Lipari, Steve Moscone, Larry Hines, Leigh
Witty – Adopted unanimously in a motion by Russ Lipari, Seconded by: John Visco
Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Russ
Lipari, Larry Hines, Leigh Witty
PMSP/F 02-28 FOREST
RIDGE - Lot 30, Block 109 - 1 year Extension of Final Major Subdivision to
Dec. 9, 2007 – Adopted unanimously in a Motion made by: Gary Lewis, Seconded
by: Russ Lipari
Minutes of 12/14/06 – Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deborah
Nielson, John Visco, Russ Lipari, Steve Moscone, Larry Hines, Leigh Witty
Adopted unanimously in a motion by: Russ Lipari
Seconded by: Larry Hines
Michael Carroll, Esq – O/E for: $60; $300; Trust for: $240,
$60, $120, $30, $180, $30, $30, $90, $300, $90, $30, $30, $230, $300, $60, $60,
$60, $30, $480, $30
Adrian Humbert Assoc. – Trust for: $120, $60, $192, $36,
Omland Engineering – O/E for: $120; Trust for: $425, $30,
$60, $720, $930, $150, $60, $300, $480, $270, $180
Johnson, Murphy – O/E for: $135; Trust for: $40, $120
Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $125
Approved unanimously in a motion made by: John Rosellini; Seconded by:
PMSP02-15-06-02 –WAUGHAW MOUNTAIN ESTATES III -Amended
Preliminary - Prior approval for:
Block: 24, L: 3.02 - Waughaw Road – preliminary subdivision - 9 lots and
remainder w/variance – Notice Acceptable & Carried from 11-20-06 &
12-14-06 – Eligible: Mr. Karkowsky, Ms. Kull, Deborah Nielson, Mr. Visco, Russ
Lipari and Art Daughtry certified to 11-20-06;Gary Lewis certified to 11-20-06
meeting; Mr. Hines (alt#1), Mr. Witty (alt#2)ACT BY: 1/12/07
professionals Board professionals sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.
Rosellini left meeting)
Ladis Karkowsky asked if the board could proceed since the
outstanding condition of a full EIS responding to prior comments hasn’t been
received. Michael Carroll, Esq. indicated
this is preliminary approval; the board can listen to testimony. Mr. Omland indicated an EIS was submitted on
this document. If questions could not
be answered for entire site, it may be that this witness may be needed to be
called back at a future time. An EIS
for this section was submitted, but the EIS for the entire subdivision has not
Stan Omland, PE:
each phase has it’s own EIS. Planning Board indicated that they would
proceed with hearing for this subdivision this evening.
John Aubin, Environmental – sworn by Michael Carroll,
Esq. Credentials given.
Overall project consists of 49 lots. Described property: 366 acres of property – Waughaw
Mountain. Discussed topographic
condition of property with 67 acres disturbed; increase of traffic to 45
vehicles per day; there will be during construction, roads will be improved in
sections. Without phasing and staging
of development, there would a lot of soils lost.
Air Pollution discussed.
Along Rt. 23/Rt. 80, there are two measuring points. This can be used to ensure there is no air
using Mr. Uhl’s report and DEP model for groundwater recharge and
consumption based on what the current Water and Sewer is experiencing, there
will be increase of 3M ft. per year. It
is very verifiable and supportable. Mr.
Uhl suggested 220 gal. per day per consumption; DEP estimates 70% goes back
into groundwater, for report applicant used 50%.
Stormwater management system has to recharge as much as they
are estimating to use. Beyond recharge
of the system and septic system, there is a benefit over the amount of water
being pumped out. Stormwater is subject
to a lot of constraints. As you
construct pervious, you get faster runoff.
Result is that the curb create a graph of water runoff, curb shrinks and
gets a higher peak. The peak is cut
down to a level lower than prior state.
Doesn’t mean an increase in water volume, but actual water leaving the
site is less than before. In terms of
2-year storm, there will be less volume and peak rate of flow leaving the site.
Art Daughtry: in
view of phasing and testimony indicating that the owner intended to building at
least three homes per year, does that mean that the lots first to be developed
are going to be those closest to the first road.
Mr. Aubin: each
section 1 thru 4 can be developed individually. May not be 1 thru 4 in that manner but will do roadway
infrastructure and storm-water infrastructure.
Marie Kull: she
understands you can develop one phrase, but shouldn’t we be concerned about
impact to the other sections? Stan
Omland, PE indicated that Section 1 and section 3 share a stormwater
structure? Stan Omland, PE: as to this
issue: perhaps applicant and/or his
engineer should respond to this question especially as it relates to the timing
of applicant’s project development since it was testified that the development
would be about 2-3 homes a year which stretches this project out for number of
years. Detention basins are phased into
developments, and other components couldn’t happen until this is done. Mr. Aubin:
the stormwater runoff from the homes and driveways and impervious
surface do not go to bio retention basin.
Mr. Pio Costa: sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.
Mr. Pio Costa: there
are some homes that have certain detention basins. Stan Omland, PE: board
has to make sure project is phased properly.
This is last chance to make sure that it all works in the proper
fashion, but there needs to be identification of which phase comes first. Whether it done thru this application or
thru a DA, then you must take care of this.
Sections can be sold out. Comments
will be offered later in hearing: how
does this fit together as four phases into one project.
Mr. Pio Costa: this
is preliminary approval asking board to allow waiver of details. Ladis Karkowsky: wants to have things defined up front as part of the overall
Mr. Omland: there
was certain exceptions testified to on road.
Mr. Aubin: this phasing has to
be nailed down because of the independency on part of the other sections. In addressing this, they must address the
sequence of construction and how it will change in its character along the
sediment tract to a bio-retention system.
If it is not done carefully, the sediment will clog bio-detention basin
and must be addressed.
Mr. Aubin: all homes
are on septic; nitrates are a concern to the water that apparently leads to
SIDS. State has an anti-degradation
Gary Lewis: storm
drain line to Phase III limits has a series of drop manholes to slow down the
rate? Is this cut thru a forested area
and if so, how do we restore it? Do we
leave a 15’ deforested area in mountain?
Stan Omland, PE: we would leave
deforested for future access/maintenance and we need this access for
inspection. It looks like a blight and
is a visual impact but has to be this way.
This area is reflected in EIS.
Mr. Aubin: will lost
about 65 acres of forest. There is a
trade off: you gain a couple of things: where you have a forest cut, and lost some
habitat, as a result, you get a different habitat. While you lose deep forest, you pick up another habitat.
Stan Omland, PE: can
you touch on soil movement and activities?
Are you familiar with rock on site?
Is there blasting for roadway and/or house construction. Mr. Aubin:
will be blasting and applicant will comply with blasting policy.
Mr. Justin Taylor – sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.
Course of study was technical engineering not traffic. Qualified as a traffic expert in this
Ms. White reviewed the outstanding items that the applicant
must address from the prior hearing:
Planning Board would like to see this number to see the
hardship to see the 14% vs 16% - provide numbers to the board.
Conceptually layouts and how redesign would impact lots and
what the resultant slopes would be and end cuts. To demonstrate feasibility or infeasibility would give Planning
Board evidence for hardship for board.
Planning Board not asking for formal drawings, but are looking for
studies undertaken to demonstrate how you came to this conclusion. Will provide data to board.
No further subdivision on this lot prohibition and applicant
will need to discuss and address this.
Stan Omland, PE also asked that the applicant pursue
on-going discussion about Waughaw Road and off-site improvements with Township
Engineer since this needs to be flushed out before this hearing completed. Applicant was requested to get something
formal from township engineer.
Kinnelon property issue:
it is one lot, and there is potential to construct one home and would
require access from proposed roadway network.
One of the lots in Montville depicted and may give easement to Kinnelon
lot. Who would provide services to this
lot? Would this compromise 50-lot issue
with DEP and septic designs. This has
to be looked at. Applicant was to
address this also.
Mr. Taylor: reviewed
the roadway display. The grades were
discussed as it relates to diminious exception. There is an existing driveway.
Maximum slope is 21%. There is
the interconnecting driveway. Maximum
on driveways is 16% and the rest complies at 14%. Longview main road is 10%.
Mr. Daughtry: at
November testimony, testimony indicated that you would need an extra 500 ft. on
either side just to improve this roadway and that you would also need to
eliminate a lot to do this. What is
being shown tonight: is this same location
that the road was in at November hearing.
This is not improving the 21% slope.
Stan Omland, PE: asked for depth of cut? Mr. Taylor:
maximum of 18’. Mr.
PioCosta: rock cut discussed. Stan Omland, PE: this plan represents a personal belief that this is
representative of limit of disturbance and there would be no vertical cut. Rock is on certain side and there is fill on
certain sides. Mr. Pio Costa: Road
would only be used on minor basis due to snow/ice. To change road would be a large undertaking since there would be
a big disturbance. Residents have a way
out if road is too icy.
what about emergency access?
Mr. Pio Costa: on
flatter side of hill, according to RSIS, there is only allowed 23 lots, this
applicant exceed this number by four additional residents above the
standard. Stan Omland, PE: can’t discern what is being seen. Asked to see the alternatives to look at
technical compliance or non-compliance vs creating a hardship. This is why the board wanted to see what
could be complied with. Have 21%
proposed. Mr. Pio Costa: feels Waughaw Road is same as this.
Stan Omland, PE:
testimony is interesting and from planning perspective, feels it is
necessary. Board has to make decision
on link that may not be regularly used and essential is when westerly side is
cut off, and it is winter time, there are two statistical occurrences except
for this access. Discussion
ensued. Stan Omland, PE: whether it is a small deviation or large,
ultimately the board has to make that decision. Stan Omland, PE: couldn’t
made that determine and/or render an opinion since he couldn’t see the sketch
so he can’t determine if this is a reasonable plan. Mr. Pio Costa: it is
ugliness vs cost. This road wouldn’t be
used in snowstorm.
conceptual layout and analysis was not presented to board professionals
in advance of this meeting as requested and to now put board professionals in a
position to render advice to the board on this issue on something this
significant is not good.
Mr. Pio Costa: this
9-lot subdivision is not part of this. Board
discussed that lot 9 is part of this application and noted that this
subdivision is the last link of the entire subdivision and reminded him that
Jim Glick wanted a layout of the entire subdivision. This link is the final piece of the entire parcel and it cannot
be dismissed, and would want drawings to make sure that it is the best layout
Mr. Taylor: shared
driveway and common driveways are not subject to local zoning and feels is it
subject to RSIS. Adrian Humbert, AICP
report required a variance. 3 lots sharing would be lots 3, 4 and 5. Mr. Burgis is reviewing this as to
whether or not these are variances as previously indicated.
Mr. Pio Costa indicated there will be no garbage trucks on
site and that he indicated to have one company with one small pickup for trash
going to a central compactor.
Gary Lewis: earlier traffic study cited by the engineer for
hilly terrain on the residential streets dates back to 1990. Stan Omland, PE: Board has to weigh governing regulations. RSIS is a standard. When you have hilly terrace, allows a
maximum slope is 10% on driveway.
Stan Omland, PE: read the common
driveway section and it does not apply to single family home and is meant for
uniform design standards. These do not
apply to control of individual driveway and it under zoning code.
Mr. Burgis: there is another section that reinforces
it. Ladis Karkowsky: what information does Stan Omland, PE need
to make a good decision on this road.
John Visco: get it in writing
what has to be reviewed. Stan Omland,
PE: will do so.
Stan Omland, PE:
plan, cover sheet, profile and key critical cross sections to relate the
actual slope conditions where slopes are existing and horizontal details.
No further subdivision for lots existing before this
board. Mr. Pio Costa: doesn’t know if he would restrict
subdivision. Applicant indicated he
would not bring outstanding condition of resolution.
Waughaw Road – don’t intend to make anything about upgrade
to Waughaw Road. Stan Omland, PE: because it is an application pending before
the road, can have traffic engineer testify to it. Fair share obligation and frontage improvements are typical to
all subdivisions. Michael Carroll,
Esq.: whatever the code requires. Applicant will comply with what law
Art Daughtry: there
are two aspects of Waughaw Road that needed to be addressed. Drainage problems on this property which
applicant indicated he would offer his equipment to assist township with. Below this property, casual improvements
were made to improve water flow, and Montville may have to deal with this
issue, but if it is normal to require and/or ask for contribution, there is an
issue on line of sight and drainage on property. Ladis Karkowsky: hope we
can have an agreement.
Gary Lewis: appears
to be multiple issues relative to construction sequence, and perhaps it would
be wise to have environmental engineer, site engineer, board engineer lay out
exactly the sequence of construction.
Can’t wait till final approval.
Stan Omland, PE:
this is last phase and understands there are also finals. Need a phasing plan and applicant’s engineer
has to submit phasing plan.
understand what is said about stormwater management being done first,
but all of the puzzles aren’t highlighted in a resolution. Appreciate that things could change but
right now, have to address project before you.
If this is what you presented as a Planning Board and to community, want
to know deal.
Deborah Nielson: one
question – memo from environmental commission dated 12/15/06, there is no
testimony on this, and would like to see this responded to. Mr. Pio Costa feels the request of the
Environmental Commission is far beyond this subdivision. Not providing new
information, and will give information when they dig holes for wells.
Stan Omland, PE:
these inquiries were discussed, and he recalls Mr. Pio Costa discussing
them and feels applicant should give courtesy of response with a short letter
detailing each issue/response per their letter. A courtesy response is in order. Don’t think a quick submissive
response is appropriate. Discussion
As to property in Kinnelon:
Mr. Pio Costa noted this is not Montville’s property and at this time he
didn’t intend to develop this land.
There are other outstanding agency reports: Morris County Soils; Public Works report and
applicant indicated they are working on getting these reports and will supply
Mr. Pio Costa indicated he feels their professional
testimony is complete. Stan Omland, PE
Needs to report back to Planning Board on designs and needs to make
determinations if there are variances involved on common driveways and this
cannot be done outside the board’s review process. If a variance if determined, applicant must provide testimony for
hardship and granting of variances.
Applicant asked that if the board grants preliminary, that
they be given a longer life on fulfilling preliminary. Board asked for the overall master plan and
phasing prior to next meeting also, and to supply all outstanding issues
discussed as part of this hearing.
Motion made and carried with notice to February 22, 2007. Time to act extended to: 2/23/07
Motion made: John Visco; Seconded by: Marie Kull
Roll call vote: unanimous
PMN06-04 – BECK – 15 Glenview Road – B: 31 L: 13 – Minor
Subdivision & Associated Variances - Notice Acceptable & Carried
from 10-26-06 ACT BY:
Rescheduled to: 2/8/07 – new notice required
PSP/F06 – 13- HOFF, Patrick – Preliminary & Final
Site and Rear-Set Back Variance for Office/Warehouse/Equipment Storage &
outdoor storage of dry goods @ 57 Stiles Ln. – B: 160.02, L: 10 Notice Acceptable & Carried from 11-20-06 ACT BY: 1/08/07
Due to time constraints, this application was carried
to: February 8, 2006 with notice
preserved and time to act extended 1/9/07
Carried to: February 8, 2007 with notice preserved in motion
by John Visco, Seconded by: Larry Hines
PSPP/F98-13-06-17 – RAIA - 5 Changebridge Rd. - B:
59.02, L: 27 – amended site plan w/ variance signage ACT
Carried to: 1-25-07
with notice preserved in a motion made by John Visco, Seconded by: Larry
Hines unanimously adopted
John Visco: voiced
concerns on submission items not being given to Planning Board professionals in
adequate time. He recommended that if
someone comes and has not presented the materials previously requested, can we
not have our chairman indicate that we are not going to consider and/or take a
vote on the matter that evening?
Michael Carroll, Esq.: because
you haven’t complied with the documents, you have a choice on taking items off
an agenda for lack of appropriate information and/or an adjournment on the
matter at the meeting.
explained that as the Mayor, he has already advised Jim Glick that it
would be his intention to not support him for reappointment, but if he were
became mayor, he would support him to replace him on this board as his selected
appointment. He will appoint Jim Glick
as his replacement when he feels well and can participate expressing that he
felt the mayoral appointment was for only one year and that he would want
continuity at this level vs yearly changes.
Deborah Nielson: indicated
she disagreed feeling the mayor should sit since she feels it is an important
function as mayor is head of chair of governing body and brings vision to he
Michael Carroll, Esq.:
indicated that the legislation really didn’t make this law clear since
it was intended for elected mayors noting these types of appointees usually do
not participate on a Planning Board.
Discussion re: Towaco Center Scheduling –put back on
planning discussion for scheduling on for 25th. Board professionals will meet and discuss
timeframes for this and other ordinances.
Development of Ordinance
Regulating placement of Detention Basins on individual lots – not discussed
Update: Highlands Legislation
Stan Omland, PE discussed the Highlands and the memo he
released to the Planning Board this evening.
Deborah Nielson indicating this issue along with the Growth Impact
Ordinance needs to be discussed at the Township Committee since the Governing
Body needs to be abreast of these ordinances, noting it is important to have a
joint meeting with all parties so everyone understands all these
ordinances. Professionals will be
making a presentation but several other organizations should participate.
Mr. Omland briefly
reviewed what is happening in Highlands:
They have taken planning area and divided into three zones – protection
zone; conservation zone and planned community zone and only zone you can
develop in is planned community zone, the lower section of 287, but there are a
lot of properties not in that area, are in conservation area. Invite Highlands to make a
presentation. If you opt in, there are
certain carrots given to township, but the penalties are you may ‘lose’
authority to govern town. Planning
Board may be moot. Master Plan that is
out is very silent on what control you retain if you opt in.
If you opt out, said
it is voluntary, state has a way of cross connecting agencies
DCA/Transportation/DEP – many say that you will get new permits if you are
‘consistent’ with the state plan, with COAH and with Highlands, and unless you
are consistent, you’re going to have a hard time with permits.
ensued. We may agree, but these are
specific areas that are not appropriate.
Stan Omland, PE: there are errors in this, there are established
criteria, and they are not consistent with their own master plan. Discussion ensued as to asking for some
mapping changes. Deborah Nielson: should we now offer objection to their
mapping line and ask for a modification to this. Boundaries can’t be changed, but perhaps the zones may be able
NJ Farm Bureau has
opposed this since they now can’t finance due to lack of equity. Hunterton and Warren County are opposing and
have filed lawsuits. Gary Lewis: should we take the lead and invite
Highlands. Most towns are either
opposed or uncertain.
discussed. Pio Costa’s would be one lot
for every 88 acres under Highlands. His property is in Highland’s Preservation
area. Michael Carroll, Esq.: suit has been filed. Judge dismissed and said to go back to
There are 20
technical reports commissioned by highlands counsel; two are available.
Sewer & Water
Dept. is affected and should be concerned about using to it’s maximum since the
new legislation will not allow any extensions.
Mapping is in PDF
snapshot photo, GIS is the type of mapping we all use (topo, slopes, layers,
etc.). They have done this, but not
made it regulated for release to community.
Need layers, etc. in order to say how it impacts us.
Esq.: Legislators recently approved 3
open space bills of 18-20M and one for some urban districts of 44M. Clear they are spending more on urban. Planning Board asked to keep this on regular
Planning Board schedules.
unanimously in a motion by Larry Hines, Seconded by: John Visco
Linda M. White