PB Minutes 1-11-07 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



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

                                    Mr. Speciale (Alt #1) – present

Also Present

Stan Omland, PE

Michael Carroll, Esq.

Joseph Burgis, AICP






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


Designation of Meeting Nights 7:30PM

Meeting Dates                                     

January 11, 2007                                  July 12, 2007

January 25, 2007                                  July 26, 2007  

February 8, 2007                                 August 9, 2007

February 22, 2007                   August 23, 2007          

March 8, 2007                         September 13, 2007

March 22, 2007                                   September 27, 2007

April 12, 2007                          October 11, 2007

April 26, 2007                          October 25, 2007

May 10, 2007                          November 8, 2007

May 24, 2007                          November 19, 2007* (Monday)

June 14, 2007                          December 13, 2007

June 28, 2007                          January 10, 2008

Designation of Official Newspaper for Legal

The Daily Record & The Citizen (for publication purposes)

Adopted unanimously

Following professionalappointments unanimously adopted:

Appointment: Board 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

Following liaison appointments made by Chairman Karkowsky:

a) Board of Adjustment – Larry Hines 

            b) Board of Health – Leigh Witty 

            c) Environmental Commission – Marie Kull

            d) Water & Sewer – Larry Hines 

            e) Historic 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

            j) Economic 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 activity.

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.

John Rosellini:  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. 

Russ Lipari:  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 recommendations offered. 

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 issue tonight.   

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 plans. 

Mr. Speciale:  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 trucks.

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. 

John Rosellini:  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 general notice.    


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, $264; $1,680

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:

Larry Hines




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

Note:  board professionals Board professionals sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.

(Note:  John Rosellini left meeting)

Present:  Josh Zielinski, Esq.

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 been submitted. 

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 pollution.    

Groundwater impact:  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 approval document.

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 system.

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. 

Credentials given.  Course of study was technical engineering not traffic.  Qualified as a traffic expert in this hearing.

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. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  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.

Deborah Nielson:  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 done. 

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 certain percentage. 

Deborah Nielson:  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 requires.

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. 

Russ Lipari:  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 ensued.

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 outstanding reports.

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:  2/9/07

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  - Unanimous

PSPP/F98-13-06-17 – RAIA - 5 Changebridge Rd. - B: 59.02, L: 27 – amended site plan w/ variance signage                        ACT BY: 3/17/07

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. 

Art Daughtry:  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 Planning Board. 

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

Tract 4

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.

Discussion 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 to.

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. 

Highlands 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 legislators.

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. 

Michael Carroll, 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. 

Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion by Larry Hines, Seconded by: John Visco

Unanimously adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White


Last Updated ( Wednesday, 20 February 2008 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack