PB Minutes 2-8-07 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Mr. Rosellini – Present                          Mr. Karkowsky - Present        

Ms. Kull - Absent                                 Mr. Daughtry - Absent

Ms. Nielson - Present                           Mr. Visco - Present

Mr. Lipari - Present                              Mr. Lewis - Present

Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - Present               Mr. Hines - Present     

                        Mr. Witty (alt#2) - Present













Wellhead Protection Ordinance – Discussion - Stan Omland, PE

Linda White summarized prior review/activity on this subject dating back over several years, including joint meetings with Planning Board professionals.

The report issued by Stan Omland, PE dated 2-8-07 on this subject follows:

Regarding:     Review of Environmental Commission Proposed Wellhead Protection Ordinance / Amendments to the Critical Water Resources Ordinance

Copies to:       Environmental Commission

            Board of Health

            Engineering Department

            Joe Burgis, PP

            Michael Carroll, Esq.

As requested by the Board, this office has reviewed the Montville Township Environmental Commission’s proposed Wellhead Protection Ordinance for the Towaco Valley Drainage Basin Area”, marked ‘Final Draft’, dated January 2007.  The Board also authorized us to make recommendations as to implementation. 

The above referenced Wellhead Protection Ordinance had standards and objectives that appeared to be both zoning related (Land Use) as well as enforcement related (Board of Health).  We had therefore some difficulty contemplating the division of administration, authority and responsibility.  We accordingly considered the following:

Separating out those portions of the document pertaining to Land Use Regulation (zoning and development design standards) for incorporation into the existing CWR portion of the Ordinance (16.44.290).  

The remainder of the document, principally those sections of the “Proposed Wellhead Protection Ordinance” pertaining to reporting and documentation procedures not related to Land Use, to be considered for inclusion into the Board of Health Regulations (Title 17 of the Township code). 

Upon completing the land use portion, we concluded that there was insufficient cause or remaining content for a separate, new ordinance within the Board of Health regulations.  Therefore our recommended ordinance changes (for land use only) follow herein and are attached for the Board’s consideration.

These proposed CWR ordinance amendments contain various interrelations and references to other chapters of the Township code.  Those affected sections of the Township Code may also require amendments in order to provide the codified references between these separate chapters. 

We encourage the Environmental Commission, Board of Health, Township Engineer, and Water and Sewer Department’s review and comments on this modification to


Chapter 16.04.040 shall be amended to include the following definitions:

Aquifer – A geologic formation, group of geologic formations, or part of a geologic formation that contains sufficient saturated permeable rock, sand or gravel which is capable of storing and transmitting usable quantities of water to wells or springs.

Best Management Practices (BMP):  These are performance or design standards established to minimize the risk of contaminating groundwater or surface waters while managing the use, manufacture, handling or storage of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes.

Contamination:  The presence of any harmful or deleterious substances exceeding current Federal and State Maximum Contaminant Levels in the water supply.  The NJDEP residential clean up standards shall apply to residential uses and the non-residential standards shall apply to non-residential uses.

Discharge:  Any intentional or unintentional action or omission, unless pursuant to and in compliance with the conditions of a valid and effective Federal or State of New Jersey Permit resulting in the releasing, spilling, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping of a hazardous substance into the waters or lands of the State of New Jersey or into the waters or natural resources within the jurisdiction of the State of New Jersey.  See also ‘Illicit Discharge’ 8.30.020

Groundwater:  Water contained in interconnected pores of a saturated zone in the ground, also known as well water.  A saturated zone is a volume of ground in which the voids in the rock or soil are filled with water at a pressure greater than atmospheric.

Hazardous Substance:  Any substance designated under 40 CFR pursuant to Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 [Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500; 33 U.S.C 1251 et seq.)], the Spill Compensation and Control Act N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11 et seq., or Section 4 of the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act N.J.S.A. 58:10 A-4).  Substances listed include petroleum, petroleum products, pesticides, solvents and other substances.

Hazardous Waste:  Any solid waste that is defined or identified as a hazardous waste pursuant to CFR Part 261, the Solid Waste Management Act N.J.S.A. 13:1E et seq. or N.J.A.C. 7:26-8.

Major discharges – Those discharges for which a NJPDES discharge to ground water permit is required.  Examples include but are not limited to discharges of sanitary wastewater from housing developments, schools, businesses, factories; discharges of industrial wastewater; illicit connections as defined in 8.30.020; and some stormwater discharges.  Sanitary landfills and hazardous waste facilities can also be considered potential major dischargers to ground water. These discharges often use injection wells (including subsurface disposal systems serving facilities with an aggregate design flow in excess of 2,000 gallons/day); infiltration/percolation lagoons; spray irrigation; overland flow systems; surface impoundments; dredge spoils; and residuals surface impoundments.

Sole Source Aquifer:  Any drinking water aquifer upon which 50-percent of a population group depends and for which there is no practicable or affordable alternate water supply as certified by the United State Environmental Protection Agency as defined Section 1424(e) of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974.

Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC):  A written document that describe measures to be taken to prevent, contain and clean up oil spills or other regulated wastes prior to discharge to surface or groundwaters..

Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA):  A land area described in plan view around a well from which groundwater flows to the well and groundwater pollution, if it occurs, may pose a significant threat to the quality water withdrawn from the well. A Wellhead Protection Area is a mapped area around a public water supply well that delineates the horizontal extent of ground water captured by a public water supply well pumping at a specific rate over a specific time. A WHPA has three tiers which serve to delineate priority areas for the protection of ground water quality. Tier 1 is a two-year time of travel, (i.e. the ground water within this tier flows to the well within a two-year time period). Tier 2 is equivalent to a five-year time of travel, while Tier 3 is equivalent to a twelve-year time of travel.  For the purposes of this ordinance, the WHPA shall refer to the Critical Water Resource district areas as shown on the Montville Zoning Map, as amended from time to time.

16.44.290 Development standards in the critical water resources (CWR) district.

General References:

Environmental Impact Statements – See Chap 8.24

Illicit Connection to Stormwater System – See Chap. 8.30

Improper Disposal to Stormwater System – See Chap. 8.31

Underground Storage Tanks – See Chap 8.56

Soil Removal – See Chap. 12.24

Stormwater Management – See Chap. 16.35

Right to Farm – See Chap. 16.44.320

The governing body of the Township of Montville finds that:

The groundwater contained within the area known as the Towaco Valley Aquifer (TVA) is a major water supply source, including drinking water.  The TVA is 1.25 square miles in area and is classified as a “Buried Valley Aquifer.” The TVA has been designated as a “sole source” aquifer under Section 1424(e) of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.

The aquifer is integrally connected with and is recharged by the surface waters within the Towaco Valley Drainage Basin.  This drainage basin has been delineated on the Township of Montville’s Zoning Map and is known as the Critical Water Resources District (CWR).

Montville’s three current production wells are a major source of existing and future drinking water supply for the Township.  These production wells are completed in and operate in the CWR.

Accidental spills and discharges of toxic and hazardous materials, as described in Chapters 8.30 and 8.31 of the Township Ordinance, may threaten the quality of this groundwater supply.

In the interest of safeguarding Montville’s drinking water supply source, and in so doing protecting the health of the public and protecting the economic interest of the community in its drinking water supply, groundwater and surface water contamination should be prevented by regulating or prohibiting certain land uses or activities within the entirety of the CWR.


The purpose of this ordinance is to protect public health, safety and welfare through the protection of the Township’s community production wells.  To do this, the following measures have been implemented:

Areas of land surrounding Montville’s production wells, known as Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs) from which contaminants may move through the ground to be withdrawn in water taken from the wells have been delineated and are identified as the Critical Water Resources District, as shown on the Official Township Zoning Map, as amended from time to time.

The refinement of an existing ordinance to regulate activities within the Critical Water Recourses District.  The purpose of the regulations contained within this ordinance is to regulate those certain land uses that inherently produce degraded stormwater runoff or have the potential for deleterious discharges to surface and groundwater.

The following additional development standards shall apply in the Critical Water Resources District:

Sections A through D to remain in place

New Sections To Be Added:

In the event that new public water supply wells are installed in locations outside the boundaries of the CWR, a new wellhead protection area must be established for each new well.  Subsequently, all of the regulations detailed in this ordinance are to be applied to the new wellhead protection area

All Major Development, as defined in Chapter 16.04.04, within the CWR must demonstrate conformance with the Township’s enhanced stormwater management requirements pertaining to groundwater recharge and runoff water quality, as described in 16.35.100 of the Township code, in order to eliminate the potential for degrading or contaminating the surface and groundwaters within the CWR

A detailed hydrogeologic investigation shall be required for any new Major Development or Redevelopment within the CWR.  The hydrogeological investigation should include site specific discussions including :

Introduction and Background information (description, relation to contaminated sites, etc)

Water well records, if available

Field investigations (as applicable: test wells, pump tests, etc.)

Water supply needs

General Geology/hydrogeology

Groundwater flow directions and gradients

The following High Risk Uses that are potential major sources of groundwater contamination are prohibited in both of the designated areas of the CWR:

Building Materials and Contractor's Yards


Commercial Fuel Oil Distributor

Commercial Livestock Operations

Dumps and Open Burning Sites/Pits

Junk or Salvage Yards

Land Application of Wastewater and/or Sludge

Machine Shops

Metal Plating Establishments

Motor Vehicle Sales (New and Used)

Motor Vehicle Service Stations

Bulk Storage Operations Involving Liquids, Hazardous Substances or Wastes, or Petroleum Products (excluding residential/commercial heating oil storage)

Recycling Center

Sanitary Landfill or Solid Waste Transfer Facility

Non-single family Sewage Treatment/Disposal Pond

Radioactive Materials Operations or Disposal

Quarries and Mining Operations

Unenclosed Road Salt Stockpiles


Any high-risk use located within the CWR in existence prior to the date of enactment of this ordinance shall be exempted from compliance with the requirements of this ordinance. 

Any material change or expansion of an existing high-risk use or property that would, in the opinion of the applicable Township official, result in a Major Soil Removal Permit, Minor Site Plan, Major Site Plan, Major Subdivision application to the Planning Board, or otherwise meet the definition of a Major Development would require full compliance with the ordinance contents.  Specifically excluded are those activities that are described in and governed by Chapter 16.44.030 (Right to Farm) of the Township Ordinance.

The owner/operator of any new commercial and industrial uses within the CWR shall submit their Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans and any other written emergency procedures to the Township, upon request. 

The owner/operator of any new commercial and industrial uses within the CWR shall submit to the Board of Health and Township Engineer the following information and reports:

Copies of all federal, state and county operational applications, approvals, and permits; and reports and monitoring results that are related to environmental, pollution control, hazardous substance, hazardous waste and drinking water rules and regulations at the time of submittal to the federal, state and county authorities.

Copies of all notices, reports and documents that are filed with federal, state and county authorities in the event of any release of a hazardous substance or contamination, at the time of filing.

Copies of all notices, orders, rules, decisions, recommendations, enforcement actions or similar documentation at the time of receipt by or on behalf of the owner/operator from any federal, state of county authorities in connection with enforcement of environmental, pollution control, hazardous substance, hazardous waste and drinking water rules and regulations.

All garbage dumpsters for residential, commercial or industrial land uses within the Towaco Valley Drainage Basin will be will be operated in an environmentally safe manner, including but not limited to the use of watertight lids; covered, regularly emptied dumpsters; no outdoor storage of solid waste, etc.

 All new dumpster locations or relocations should be located as distant from stormwater collection facilities as practicable.  In no case shall dumpster enclosures be located immediately upstream of any inlet, catch basin or vegetated swale.

Testimony offered this evening by Stan Omland, PE finds:  Stan Omland, PE reviewed the draft taken from the environmental commission.  He summarized concerns he had indicating that there are some restrictions imposed relative to uses and risks to CWR.  He has rewritten the wellhead draft to include most of them in the land use/zoning section of the ordinance since it is important to protect the CWR district.  He indicated that after redevelopment of more than one acre, stormwater management kicks in as the force monitoring development.  All of these controls have been rewritten and are embodied in this draft report presented by Stan Omland, PE.

The CWR becomes the depository of the wellhead ordinance.  Board discussed how the Board of Health should be involved, noting that there were jurisdictional issues, some of which the Planning Board has jurisdiction on, noting that the Board of Health has little enforcement powers.

Stan Omland, PE noted he spoke to Charles Perry, the Board of Health and Tony Barile, and this draft report is a technical approach to bringing this wellhead ordinance back into a form that can be adopted.  If this board agrees and there are no adverse comments, this draft as written embodies desires of environmental commission and gives our aquifer additional protection by use and development standards. 

He indicated he recommends this report be reviewed and that the other agencies review this and offers comments back to Planning Board.  Those agencies would be the Board of Health, Environmental Commission, Water & Sewer and Tony Barile.  Linda White noted that this is on the 3rd Wednesday is Environmental Commission.  She would send another request out to these agencies asking for review comments.

Mr. Omland drew reference to Pg. 6 of his report that makes reference of new operators in CWR being required to submit a series of notices and state mandated records.  The draft of the wellhead protection says all existing commercial properties.  Are we going to tell all these people that they have to develop all spill plans, and if so, can Board of Health handle all of these documents.  The Planning Board felt we should also add Emergency Response team to list of review agencies.  Mrs. White will send to Chief of Police Rich Cook.

Stan Omland, PE:  indicated he would not be interested in monitoring or regulating this activity but notes that the one item concurred is that existing facilities under original draft had an obligation. This item may have some merits and may require creating a new regulation in Board of Health regulation.  The Township will need to create a new chapter for this wellhead protection.  Police Power on existing businesses would have to be Board of Health.  How do we force this and how do you communicate that to all users in the CWR.  This is a large task that would involve a lot of staffing and time constraints.

Mr. Speciale noted that the Right to Know program requires all forms to be filed.  Police Dept. gets duplicates and these records go to fire district.  Emergency response is by county.  You are not talking about major spills since they are normally caught.  You have to worry about contamination to water wells.

Ladis Karkowsky:  Planning Board has been diligent on this activity.  Linda White:  we catch existing businesses when they have a new tenant and/or expand at which point we have an opportunity to bring them in under waiver approval.  John Rosellini:  perhaps there can be some wording to tie in a spill containment plan to address this.

Mr. Omland noted that this review report was forwarded to the agencies noted for their comments.  The Planning Board asked that they be told to have these comments in far enough in advance of Planning Board review to allow all areas to be updated and addressed. 

Deborah Nielson:  this ordinance should also be done geographically so that the zoning map reflects it is the entire CWR zone.

Russ Lipari:  explained how uses of chemicals in industrial operations are addressed:  he indicates that when someone goes in a business, they are given an ID number and DEP tells them what has to be done.  Is the Board of Health involved in knowing this?  How do you put both of these together or is it totally the health dept?  How are you going to govern it?  Can create an ordinance that falls within jurisdiction of board to make it zoning.  New development requires it.  Existing uses is something that is hard to deal with. 

This matter was rescheduled to the first meeting in April.  Mrs. White to ask for all reports submitted from all agencies no later than mid-March so data can be sent to all board professionals. 

Rezoning Hearing re:  Hook Mountain Associates – Old Bloomfield Avenue – Carried from 9-28-06 & 11-06-06 & 1-25-07


Amendment to R27D Zone – Child Care Use discussions: Burgis Assoc.

John Rosellini abstained

Report received and under discussion from Joseph Burgis, dated: 1-23-07 follows:

Subject:            R27D Zoning Amendment Regarding Child Care Centers

Date:    January 23, 2007

The planning board recently requested that we assess the propriety of permitting childcare centers as a permitted use in the R27D Zone.  The following is offered for consideration:

There are two R27D Zones in Montville.  One is on the northerly side of Change Bridge Road immediately to the west of its intersection with Woodmont Road.  The other is on Change Bridge Road directly opposite Gathering Road.  Each of these areas are described below:

The R27D Zone near Woodmont Road encompasses eleven lots and twenty acres.  The land use pattern includes four detached dwellings whose lots range in size from 0.66 acre to 1.35 acres, a board of education building, one 2.7 acre commercial property occupied by a landscape company, two vacant lots that are 1.2 and 1.24 acres in area, respectively, and a 4.3 acre lot that is apparently presently being developed.  There are also two municipally owned vacant lots in the zone.  Industrial development is situated immediately across the street from this zone, on Change Bridge Road. Single-family dwellings are located to the east and northeast of the zone, with office development situated farther to the east.

The R27D Zone opposite Gathering Road is comprised of a single vacant lot. This zone encompasses 2.5 acres; it is part of a larger lot totaling 8.8 acres.   The surrounding development pattern includes industrial and commercial uses to the south, and detached residential development to the north and east.

The land use pattern found in these zones and in the surrounding area is shown on an Existing Land Use Map and aerials.  These maps will be distributed at the meeting.

The R27D Zone permits detached single family dwellings on 27,000 square foot lots (1 acre if in the CWR District), as well as municipal uses and agricultural uses as principal permitted uses, and houses of worship, public and private schools, and community shelters as conditional uses.    

Child care centers are permitted in the township’s non-residential zones, exclusive of the B-5 Zone.  The ordinance does not impose specific provisions regulating this use; the area and bulk regulations applicable to the individual zone apply to the use.  The code also imposes a standard of one parking space per 150 square feet of gross floor area.

The township master plan does not specifically address the issue of childcare centers.   It does note that one of its goals is to plan for the needs of local residents through study of demographic conditions.  A review of 1990 and 2000 census data reveals that the township has experienced a significant increase in the number of children under the age of five, as well as an increase in the number of families where both adults in the household are working.  This office was not able to obtain a list of facilities in Montville and surrounding municipalities to determine if need is being met by existing facilities.

The Municipal Land Use Law provides that family day care is a permitted use in all residential zones. Family day care is limited to a maximum of six children, and the single-family zone’s regulations apply.  The MLUL also provides that childcare centers for which a license is required from the Department of Human Services shall be permitted in all non-residential zones in a community.

The State has highlighted its strong legislative policy that encourages zoning for day care, emphasizing the fact that more than 50 percent of working-age women are in the workforce, and the ‘ever increasing’ need for families to have both adults in the workforce. 

An amendment to permit childcare centers in a residential zone that adjoins non-residential zoning has merit, based on the above noted legislative intent.  It is recommended that, since the township ordinance does not have specific regulatory controls for child care centers, the ordinance should set forth specific regulations for this use.  The following is offered for consideration: 

Minimum Lot Area:                   40,000

Minimum Lot Width:                 150 feet

Minimum Lot Depth:                 150 feet

Minimum Front Yard:               50 feet

Minimum Side Yards:               25 feet

Minimum Rear Yard:                50 feet

Minimum Perimeter Buffer:        25 feet of planted buffer area along side & rear lot lines

Maximum Building Coverage:    20 percent

Maximum Impervious Coverage:           55 percent

Maximum Building Height:         2 stories/30 feet

Minimum Outdoor Play Area:   150 sq ft for the first five children, plus an additional 30 sq ft of play area per child at peak usage.

Licensure:                                 Such facility shall be licensed by the New Jersey Department of Human Services, and provide proof of licensure or application indicting licensure is in the process of being obtained.

It is noted that current DHS regulations limit occupancy of childcare centers to the equivalent of 35 square feet of usable area per child.  END OF REPORT

Testimony offered by Mr. Burgis finds:  There are two R27D, one on Changebridge and one near Gathering Road.  Mr. Burgis discussed his findings of the tract of lands on Changebridge.   The exhibits reflect that they are mostly near industrial zones.  Identified statutory requirements of a day care use.  Identified that the current ordinance doesn’t have day care centers and regulations.  There are some buffer requirements that should be put in as either a principal permitted use or allow it as a conditional permitted use.

The issue of a conditional use is not strongly supported since the Planning Board is the planner for the community and they would prefer it to be as a permitted use review by this board.   Planning Board members felt this should be a permitted use and should have bulk requirements similar to other zoning requirements.  Russ Lipari:  confirm it would not be spot zoning.  Mr. Burgis:  agreed.

Ladis Karkowsky:  adult care discussed.  Mr. Burgis:  can be set into the code to respond to this also.

Gary Lewis: talked about the 25’ buffer requirement proposed and how does this correspond with other buffers between residential and non-residential indicating we are talking about a 50’ setback with 25’ landscaped.  Concerns noted as it relates to noise impact to residential neighbors. Feels we should have more setbacks on the sides to also provide for playground. 

Russ Lipari:  any studies conducted on relationship to what is acceptable as to side yard and rear yard distances from residential zone?

To minimize impact, you can have an overlay for the westerly area.  No need to worry about the other zones that allow this use.

Gary Lewis:  vacant lot between municipal lot and other lot, should we consider prohibited of any outdoor activity within the first 40’ to 50’.    Deborah Nielson:  can we require additional measurements if a use is within 100’ of a residential zone?  Stan Omland, PE:  the type of enclosure would be a solid fence.  Board members felt it is our first responsibility to protect existing residential uses.  You can require solid fencing in addition to landscaping.  Stan Omland, PE:  concerns on height of wall.  Discussion ensued on how to develop noise mitigation measures:  should we require a noise study if a playground area is within so many feet of residential zone?  Mr. Omland indicated there are a variety of fences, insulating barriers are used, and height is something is that is unique to every site.  If language is written in, then applicants will be required to support that there are no impacts to residence and will reflect this with mitigation by installation of a fence and/or by maintaining a certain setback.

Mr. Burgis:  landscaping in itself doesn’t do much for noise.  Gary Lewis:  if we are going to allow it, then allow it as permitted at Planning Board level.  Also suggest we look at elder care which is a good use. 

Mr. Burgis:  at this point, he would look at developing an ordinance that would require a solid fence within so many feet of a residential zone and would also put in some setbacks that would restrict any activity in a required setback area, also looking to require a noise study if within so many feet of residential zone.  Gary Lewis:  doesn’t feel we need this element.  Mr. Burgis would also look at side yards and buffer requirements. 

Gary Lewis:  motion made authorizing Mr. Burgis to develop a draft ordinance incorporating concerns and findings of board

Seconded:  Tony Speciale

Pending item – senior care – Carried to another agenda schedule in future. 

Linda White explained

Pete Verniero – 8 Dogwood Center – does this mean this use is permitted at Montville Plaza site?

Ladis Karkowsky:  explained the Board is looking at this use as being a permitted activity in an R27D zone.

Mr. Verniero:  objected to any change from prior use and activity on the Montville Plaza site. 

This matter was carried to: March 22nd

Tract 2

(Note: John Rosellini returned to meeting)

Height Ordinance –

Report dated 2-6-07 issued by Burgis Associates discussed follows:

Burgis Report of 2-6-07:  We recently were requested to review the manner in which the township regulates building height.  The area of concern apparently revolves around the fact the current ordinance imposes a maximum building height based on the average height as measured all around a building, but does not limit the maximum height any single building wall may be.  Consequently, there are instances where a dwelling may be designed with a 30+-foot height on multiple sides of the building, and as much as a 55+ foot height on one side, and still comply to code.  We have been requested to prepare an amendment to address this issue.

The following is offered for consideration:

There are two operative definitions that merit attention, along with the Schedule of District Regulations’ Building Height limit, as follows:

The township presently defines “height of building” as “the vertical distance measured from the average finished grade level immediately adjacent to the building foundation (ie within five feet) to the highest roof beams on a flat or shed roof, to the deck level on a mansard roof, and to the average distance between the eaves and ridge level for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs.”

The ordinance defines “finished grade” as “a reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls.” 

The Schedule of District Regulations typically imposes maximum permitted heights of 30 to 35 feet in the municipality.

The difficulty that arises in Montville is that, due to the desire to have high floor-to-ceiling heights, tall atriums, etc., the ‘averaging’ provision of the ordinance has enabled buildings with one or two building wall elevations that exceed 50 feet in height, and in some case 55+ feet in height, while the building as a whole complies to code.

In an effort to address this issue, it may be appropriate for the township to consider amending the Schedule of Area and Bulk Regulations height provisions with a footnote that limits that maximum height of any one building wall to a specified height.  A maximum 45-foot height for any one wall is recommended.

As an alternative to measuring building height from the code’s average finished grade immediately adjacent to the building foundation, it is noted that some municipalities require the measurement to be taken ten feet from the building foundation, at twenty-foot intervals and at all building corners (ten from the foundation).  If the building wall is less than 40 feet in length, the measurement is taken at the mid-point of the wall.  These ordinances also typically require, where a retaining wall bisects this ten foot dimension, an additional measurement be taken using the average height between the top and bottom of the retaining wall.  This serves to provide a ‘truer’ depiction of average height around the building. 

See the accompanying illustration depicting manner the measurements would be made: .
The following draft ordinance is offered for consideration:

Ordinance No. ___

Township of Montville

Morris County, New Jersey

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville recognizes that the Municipal Land Use Law provides that a municipal zoning ordinance can properly impose regulations governing the heights of buildings in a community; and

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville is characterized by a varied topographic differential that necessitates a particular regulatory approach to the manner in which building height is measured to ensure development occurs at an appropriate scale; and

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville has concluded that the Land Development Ordinance provisions governing building height requires modification to ensure that it establishes an appropriate scale of development for new construction or additions to existing buildings; and

WHEREAS the Township of Montville seeks to establish such controls regulating the heights of buildings;

NOW THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE hereby amends Title 16 entitled Land Use Code as follows:

1.         Amend Section 16.44.020 Schedule D Schedule of Zoning Requirements, Column entitled Maximum Building Height, by adding a new Footnote Reference No. 24. Footnote No. 24 shall read at follows: Provided that, in no event shall the maximum height for detached dwellings, as measured to the ridge beam for a sloped roof exceed 45 feet, measured from any point around the building.

Amend the Schedule X-2 District Regulations, Column 10 entitled Maximum Building Height, for detached one-family and two-family dwellings in the R-1 and R-2 Zones, by adding a Footnote No. 3 at the end of the reference to the permitted building height in those zones.  Footnote No. 3 shall read as follows:  Provided that, in no event shall the maximum height as measured to the ridge beam for a sloped roof exceed 45 feet, measured from any point around the building.

Amend Article II Definitions, Section 16.04.040 by amending the definition of Height of Building to read as follows: the vertical distance measured from the average finished grade level, measured ten feet from the building foundation, at twenty foot intervals around the building (and at all points opposite corners of the building where the ten foot lines intersect), to the highest roof beams on a flat or shed roof, to the deck level on a mansard roof, and to the average distance between the eaves and ridge level for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs. If the building wall is less than 40 feet in length, the measurement shall be taken at the mid-point of the wall.  Where a retaining wall bisects the ten-foot dimension, an additional measurement shall be taken using the average height between the top and bottom of the retaining wall.  END OF REPORT

Testimony offered by Jos. Burgis finds:  Mr. Burgis discussed the height ordinance in existence and the elevations of the building and the way it is currently applied.  There was a cap at one time that indicated that there be no one elevation higher than 40’ in height.  Mr. Burgis indicated that he thought that a maximum of one elevation at 45’ is sufficient.  The alternative is spelled out in defining the number of floors. 

Take a dimension 10’ out and/or 5’ out and make it a 20’ point, and require where there is a retaining wall that this number bisected and that you take the top and bottom of a retaining wall which gives you a truer average.  Used 45’ as a cap for any one-elevation wall. 

Gary Lewis:  top of the roof measurements discussed.  Talked about knocking down a house and putting up a monster, and biggest offense is that it towers over the existing houses in the neighborhood.   Make them build a house more in scale with the surrounding homes.  Measuring ½ up roof is maybe not way to go.  Stan Omland, PE:  I think measurement should be maximum ridgeline.  Go to the highest point of ridgeline to the lowest grade around, and then maximum ridge has to be addressed. 

John Rosellini:  look at certain types of homes and review but remember that some of these homes may look high, but when all landscaped and built out, they don’t look that bad.

Look at this again in future after analyzing some of the permits pending. 

Rezoning Discussion – Rt. 46/All Brand – Cost proposal –Burgis Assoc. – Carried to: next meeting

Development of Ordinance Regulating placement of Detention Basins on individual lots – Cost Proposal – Stan Omland, PE – Carried to: next meeting








Minutes of 1-25-07 – Roll call vote: Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale, Leigh Witty

Motion to adopt made by: Larry Hines 

Second by: Tony Speciale 

Roll call:  Unanimous


Omland Engineering – O/E for: $240; $180; Trust for: $480, $300, $480, $180, $240,

$420, $120, $60, $120, $30, $240

Adrian Humbert Assoc – Trust for: $72, $84

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $30, $120, $30, $30, $240, $30, $240, $60, $60, $60,

$30, $30, $30, $300

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $90

Motion to approve made by: John Visco

Second by: Larry Hines 

Roll call:  unanimous




PMSP/F04-14-06-16 – TORCH, Joseph - B: 39.06, L: 99.03 – Abbott Rd –pre/final major subdivision – 5 lot major subdivision – Notice Acceptable from 11-20-06 hearing.  Eligible:  Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, John Visco, Larry Hines and Leigh Witty; Tony Speciale, Art Daughtry, Gary Lewis, Deborah Nielson, Russ Lipari and John Rosellini          ACT BY: 3-9-07

RESCHEDULED TO: March 8, 2007 with notice preserved and extension of time granted to 3/9/07

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 & 1-10-07 agenda  

                                                                                                 ACT BY:  2/09/07

Professional report issued by Stan Omland, PE dated 8-29-06 follows:

We have received the following documents relating to the above referenced application for the purposes of engineering completeness:

1.         Architectural plans and elevations prepared by James P. Cutillo Associates, of Pompton Plains, New Jersey, consisting of three (3) sheets, dated February 3, 2006, unrevised.

2.         Preliminary and Final Site Plans, prepared by Dykstra Walker Design Group of Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey consisting of eight (8) sheets dated February 15, 2006, revised through August 7, 2006.

3.         Proposed Landscape Plan, prepared by Hoff Custom Landscape Design, consisting of one sheet dated February 8, 2006, unrevised.

Based on our review of the above referenced documents we find the application COMPLETE for engineering issues.  Our technical review comments on the submitted documents are as follows:

The applicant should seek a jurisdictional determination from the NJDEP regarding any activities associated with removing the existing 330 sf shed currently located within the wetland transition area at the rear of the property.

The applicant should be prepared to discuss whether any vehicle maintenance activities would take place within the garage area.  Any floor drains within the garage would need to be connected to an appropriate oil/water separator.

Any fueling operations or vehicle wash down areas should be disclosed at this time, along with any necessary secondary containment or water quality measures these activities would necessitate.

The proposed location of the rear parking stalls does not lend itself to daily activities associated with the proposed material storage bins.  The applicant should be prepared to discuss the employee parking accommodations.

As the application is deemed complete for engineering items, those tree over 18” dbh, if any, should be located on the plans.

The plans depict two (2) Towaco style light fixtures in the front parking area, which we offer no objections to.  These lights function as parking lot illumination and not for streetscape purposes.

Consistent with prior applications, the Board may wish to consider whether the on-site wetlands and transition areas should be encumbered by a conservation easement.

The applicant expresses a reluctance to dedicate property to the Township for road widening purposes.  The Board may wish to discuss a road widening ‘easement’ similar to the Sharpe application (PSPP/FC-04-15).  Alternatively, the Board may wish to discuss whether relief could be granted at this time for those variances that would result from the decrease in lot size and depth associated with a right of way dedication.

The applicant is seeking variance relief for the location of the material storage bins.  The applicant should be prepared to discuss whether the bins could be arranged in a manner that would not require any relief, but still meet the operational requirements of the business.  The applicant should also be prepared to discus whether these freestanding bins will be roofed or otherwise enclosed at some later date.

The plans (architectural or engineering) should depict any ground or roof mounted HVAC units, as previously requested.

The depth to seasonal high water table, as well a permeability test at the location of the proposed drywells should be preformed and published on the plans.

The applicant should seek input from the design review committee on any signage that is proposed for this project and provide an exhibit for the Board’s review.

The Board may wish to discuss whether the landscaped area along Stiles Lane should incorporate some berming, as noted in 16.28.030.F of the Ordinance.

Any revised plans should be accompanied by a cover letter addressing our comments on a point by point basis.  The cover letter should identify those required changes to the plans, as well as those not readily apparent.

Present on behalf of the applicant: Michael Sullivan, Esq.; Patrick Hoff, applicant; Mark Walker, PE

Design Review Committee reviewed and offered recommendations on the façade of the building several times.  Mr. Sullivan summarized that they appeared before Planning Board in May for concept.  They intend to abolish vacant residential use.  They intend to have outdoor storage of dry goods.  Warehousing will be for occasional equipment storage.  Most of the time the equipment is off site.  There is no outdoor storage of equipment; no retail sale on premises; no vehicle maintenance activities on site or garage; all fueling and washing of vehicles is off site; and no customers will come to this site.

Need relief from zoning ordinance for a variance to permit a rear yard setback of 41.2 where 50’; variance for number of parking spaces per ordinance; requires 17, propose 13 but can add 2 as future, but the 13 spaces more than adequately address on site.  Need relief from design standard on westerly side 6.4’ from proposed building, but is cross referenced in zoning chart, so is variance.  Need slight disturbance in steep slopes.  Architectural plan shows two different signs for building.  Preferred one is front 4x8 and will need variance for 18” site, but can put conforming sign on and will comply. 

Michael Carroll, Esq, swore board professionals and Mr. Walker.

Mr. Walker:  discussed the site location and existing site conditions.  Has a DEP.  Exhibit is marked A1 – rendering 5-11-06.  Marked.  Rear has wetlands.  There is an existing lawn area that slopes to wetland area.  Existing conditions are 100% disturbed.  LOI was received indicated that there are intermediate with 50’ wetland buffer; there is a flood hazard area in back, but proposed development is not near this area.  Property is surrounded by large commercial development to the south, west and east. 

Circulation discussed.  Gates are proposed on backside of each building, and fence/gate is 8’ high stockade.  Will stipulate that the fence must be no higher than 8’. 

Proposal is to create the access drive and in the rear will have gravel for turning purposes.  Don’t want to rip up pavement.  Have some material storage bins.  Mr. Hoff is a landscape contractor and will store these materials.  His materials are delivered to the job.  These are here for emergency situations.   

7 parking spaces in front of bin and will not be delineated.  Hoff will control the entire site.  There are 4 employees.  Most of his equipment is off site.  Do have ample room to store on site.

Putting 2’ undulating berm along Stiles Lane to enhance landscaping, and this will be added.  Mr. Burgis and Mr. Omland asked for this.  Mr. Burgis asked for gate details and will supply.  Handicap parking space reviewed.  There are 6 designated in front, there are paved, curbing and will be striped, and need to add a handicap ramp to get access to sidewalk.  Mr. Burgis indicates no ‘separation’ of overhang of cards.  Made the sidewalk 6’ deep so that the cars do not interrupt this area.

Pattern of people entering this site reviewed.  Took a 55’ trailer and circulated around site to accommodate this size truck. 

Lighting:  adequacy discussed.  Towaco fixtures proposed in front.  In rear, there are some mounted light fixtures on back of building.  They demonstrated a .3 candle that needs to be shown over a public parking area, and runs thru ½ of parking area.  If board wants to increase lighting, this is adequate.

Rear yard setback variance discussed:  fence is higher than a dumpster; required setback is 50’ have 42.1 to the storage bins.  The storage bin is not within the 50’ in view of irregular setback. 

Access drives and distance to building discussed. 

Architectural plan reviewed:  building mounted sign discussed.  The sign is more of a square vs 18” longer sign.  Have to reduce sign.  Sign on building is 4’.  Sign variance requested.

Steep slope discussed.  Moderate slopes on property and listed them on plan.  Two slope categories impacted by plans.  Site is not considered a steep site.  The two sloped areas impacted are the 20-25% and greater than 25%.  In this area, 21.7 percent of slopes but is 284 sq. ft.  This is area of access drive and this allows a waiver under ordinance for infrastructure/driveway.  On 20-25 that is 86.2% but is total of 616 sq. ft. and this occurs in the area of the property that was previously disturbed near storage bin area.  Variance and waivers being sought:  any problems to this site and/or adverse impact to adjacent properties.  Mr. Walker:  no impact.  Bins act as a retaining wall to stop disturbance.

January 27th response to required agencies discussed.  Board of Health and Fire Prevention are standard comments; Design Review Committee reviews and agreed to upgrade windows.  Comment 8 from Stan Omland, PE memo re:  dedication or road widening?  Mr. Walker:  ROW is 33’.  If dedication were given, would lose valuable property that would make lot significantly smaller, and would need impervious variance.  Would dedicate an easement to the municipality to react the same as a dedication with the same rights to use this area as an overall ROW dedication, but doesn’t take any the area.  Applicant would agree to grant this if requested.

One other comment in Stan Omland, PE report relative to existing shed on lawn area discussed with board.  Spoke to DEP about shed and can remove this by hand, not a permitted activity.  Shed has to be removed by hand.

Stan Omland, PE:  identify width of easement.  Would match by dedicating by easement about 8.5 ft. for this roadway.  Our Master Plan would have to be addressed, noting that we have taken these as ‘easements’ vs ‘fee’ dedication.   Would not be in front parking lot area.  If easement is acceptable, then this is a Planning Board decision. 

Suggested that the front lawn be broken up and make sure that there is no sight issues coming out with a 2’ berm.  Area coming out is 4’ higher than where you enter site, and will be able to look over.  There is a landscaping plan submitted.  Plan doesn’t show berm.  Plan will be modified and ensure that another review of landscaping be addressed again to make sure there is no conflict.

Entry driveway?  Why the width at throat of Stiles vs exiting?  Why?  Mr. Walker:  one reason is to provide to the rear as well as front parking spaces, so needed this area larger for this access.  Doesn’t same condition exist at other driveway?  No, need to pull in with a larger radius.  With a truck making left on Stiles with a trailer, need a wider opening to make left hand turn into site.  Why aren’t these conditions an impact on exit?  Noting going east on Stiles.  Mr. Walker:  possibility, but there is ample room to make left hand turn.  Getting close to neighbor’s property. 

Stan Omland, PE:  is there a predominant directional distribution of traffic?  Do you know their circulation?  Mark Walker:  not sure. 

Stan Omland, PE:  stormwater management acceptable on face, but are there soils work that has been done to support this?  Mr. Walker:  not yet.  Grade is 7’ higher than wetlands area; so optimistic we will find soils to accommodate system.  If they encounter water, will go to a different system.  This issue has to be addressed if the Board were to approve this site.

Gary Lewis:  one of the variances is parking, and staff numbers discussed, understanding this was discussed in May.  Would like to hear from owner about the absence of customer parking.  Part of parking scheme is who is visiting site.

Mr. Hoff –sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq. 

As to customers coming to site, there will be none.   As to number of employees, indicated there will be a total of 4 people in office.  Top floor will consist of desks filing cabinets, drafting boards, not a lot of employees at this site.  Besides owner, anticipate 2-3 others in office. 

Gary Lewis:  parking variances and concerns discussed.  How do we deal with site plan and installation of additional parking assuming that in this case, a landscaping business may not need all spaces and we agree banking them is good, but if a different operator takes over site, then what?  You have to make provisions now and we should show future parking.  Not sure if these storage bins are used regularly, do we need them since there are sufficient landscaping companies in area.  Not sure this is a necessity.  Mr. Sullivan:  touched upon this and owner indicated that this is something that facilitates and eases his operation.  It is a great convenience to the applicant.  Would appreciate it if this could stay in.

Mr. Hines:  asked for clarification on number of employees.  Asked Mr. Hoff: what about other people coming to use trucks, what about their cars?  Mr. Hoff indicated there will be four cars coming in that may park and take their trucks, but will park in area trucks are removed. 

Mr. Sullivan:  in connection with warehouse use, there will be occasion to leave vehicles in rear, and take equipment and leave.  Can’t see more than 3-4 vehicles doing this, and combine this with other employees, sees a parking demand of 8.  Applicant is reflecting 13 spaces, which is more than adequate on site.  Can show additional spaces on back as reserved. 

Mr. Hines:  what type of vehicles will be stored?  Mr. Sullivan indicated this list is reflected on sheet 3 of 8 of site plan.  Point of this exhibit is to ‘depict’ the fact that if there were the need to store these vehicles, there would be room inside warehouse.  There will be no outside storage of vehicles, servicing and/or repair. 

Russ Lipari:  still thinks the Planning Board should address parking on site, present and proposed.  Acknowledges that the storage bins are not a necessity, and perhaps you can designate future parking in the area of the bins?  If there were a parking problem, then this would have to be done.  No objection by this owner to implementing and reflecting this as part of their site plan application.  Would agree to it being done if there were a parking problem.  Mr. Sullivan:  The bins aren’t for going back and forth, but are there for those occasions when a garden center is closed, and isn’t intended as primary use but as supplemental. 

Deborah Nielson:  agrees with Stan Omland, PE about ROW dedication, but we should get proper designation of area, and if you do designate, and you need variances now, then grant the variances as part of this site plan action and have a mechanism to insist construction of proposed parking.

Russ Lipari:  discussion about driveway and width, asking what time generally do trucks leave this area?

Mr. Hoff:  7:30AM to 8AM and wouldn’t come back till 5-6PM that night.  Russ Lipari:  concern would be encroachment over line.  Mr. Walker: there are encroachments to trucks crossing over yellow line.  The area, though, is elevated and has excellent sight distance.  Vehicle operator will know if he is going to encroach on yellow line.  Mr. Hoff:  this may happen once or twice a week in the morning.

Gary Lewis:  discussed and confirmed that road salts will not be used at these bins.  Mr. Hoff:  will not have salt bins on this site.

John Rosellini:  pavement of roadway on either side of this building?  Stiles Lane is 30’ to west and 40’ to east of site and 26’ in front of site.  40’ runs down to the intersection.   Streetscape along roadway should be addressed.  Driveway curb cuts to left of gray area skews.  In front of site it narrows down.  Stan Omland, PE: can you widen roadway?  Asked for curbing, sidewalk and what opportunity would it are to bring to 30’.  In narrow section is 25’ pavement width, and can add 5’ and bring it up to 30’ and won’t impact plan.  Can you work with curb return on exit?  Mr. Walker will look to widen it.  There are some stop signs and exit only signs.   Mr. Walker indicated he would put in the road widening, curbing. 

Interior storage of building received fire prevention report and will comply.  Stan Omland, PE:  this is unique location, with unique needs as it relates to employees, what happens though with new users?  If there is a parking problem, then suggest that there be regulation of subleasing and make sure all other site issues are clearly addressed as testified to.  The customer and retail sales and outdoor storage would have to be regulated.  Applicant concurred the conversion of bins, and the rear parking to become a parking area.  Our ordinance requires blacktop if there is parking lot created.  This parking lot would have to be done up front.  Gary Lewis:  want to see this parking lot ‘designed’ where the bins are but to have this reviewed by the board to make sure that the conditions of the occupancy are not affected and thus we have proofs at this junction vs new development in the future.

John Rosellini:  reminded board of concerns we had with another building that was approved that was a warehouse and moved their offices to the bases and sublet the first floor out. 

Deborah Nielson:  not a large building, have wetlands constraints, streetscape issues on front, you have 70’ to wetlands, with double bay parking, and front parking is constrained as well.  Maybe the building is too big.  Perhaps you should shrink building.  Testified he doesn’t need storage area, always on site, feels there is too much on this site.  Zoning requires 2 acres.  Ladis Karkowsky:  2,000 sq. ft. on second floor which is a large area.  Agree that the building can be downsized. 

Mr. Sullivan:  look at the zoning requirements:  building coverage and coverage is below code.  All building setbacks and bulk and massing, this is not a big building.   As far as space in the office, a lot of the space requires storage of big plans and large filing cabinets, and wants to have open area.  Building size proposed is fair and reasonable.

John Rosellini:  house size being torn down – how large?

Mr. Walker:  about 1600 sq. ft.  This is a 4,000 sq. ft. footprint.  This is an I2 zone.

John Rosellini:  deed restrictions need to be considered.  Mr. Burgis:  need to submit parking overlay and soils; will dedicate partial area for ROW and will require a variance for impervious.  Granting an easement will avoid variance; landscaping berms has to be looked at again.  Stan Omland, PE:  would like to see fee but believe an easement can be written to protect the township.  Deborah Nielson:  prefer this to be clean dedication.  Mr. Walker:  definitely impervious and may need front yard setback.

Side yard setback is 32.9 and 31.3 where 25’ required. 

Mr. Speciale:  would rather see back section paved vs gravel to make sure it doesn’t create run off to wetlands.  Mr. Walker: would run quicker to run-off.  Gravel stains and would be better. 

Stan Omland, PE:  split faced block was commented on.  Face will be a split-faced rock.   Linda White indicated you have right to look at the split-faced rock since it is a Design Review Committee recommendation. This is an I2 zone.  Revise plans in accordance with numbers.  Readdress and revisit façade.  Mr. Burgis:  when you do overlay, consider one-way angle parking. 

Gary Lewis:  balance of dedication and easement to township.  Stan Omland, PE:  willing to be involved.  Consider then:  partial fee up to no variances, then easement beyond that.   As to notice, feels that there would be no need for re-noticing.  8 ½ ‘ would get to 41’.  No change from visual, but would require variances.  Gary Lewis:  would support this and the variances it is generating.

Tract 3

Carried to: March 8, 2007 with notice preserved. Motion made by: John Visco, Seconded by: Larry Hines – Roll call vote:  Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty

Applicant granted an extension of time for board to vote to March 9th

PMS/C07-03 WINEBOW, Inc. – First Industrial tenancy – 20 Hook Mountain Road, Units 101 A&B – Site Plan/Variance - wine imports/warehousing/distribution – 24 hour operation; 78 employees – Office use of 13,666 sf and warehousing of 183,256 sf. – Notice Acceptable                                                          ACT BY:  5/28/07

Stan Omland, PE professional report on captioned site issued 2-8-07 follows:

We have received the following documents relating to the above referenced application for the purposes of engineering completeness:

1.         Minor Site Plans, as prepared by Professional Planning and Engineering, Inc of Cedar Knolls, New Jersey, consisting of two (2) sheets dated January 26, 2007, unrevised.

2.         Architectural elevations and floor plan, as prepared by Potter architects of Union, unrevised.

3.         Exterior Noise Evaluation, as prepared by Lewis S. Goodfriend & Associates of Whippany, New Jersey, dated January 11, 2007 and supplement dated January 23, 2007.

This application entails various proposed site improvements in order to accommodate the operational needs of a 24 hour tenant occupying the majority of #20 Hook Mountain Road. Those site improvements include changes to the Hook Mountain parking lot and the installation of a sound barrier along a portion of the easterly side of the parking lot.

Based on our review of the above referenced documents we find the application technically INCOMPLETE for engineering issues.  We would offer no objections to this application being presented, despite the absence of the required information discussed below.  The applicant is reminded that this information may ultimately be required by the Board prior to any action being taken.

The applicant’s professional has submitted an outdated completeness checklist as part of the application materials.  In the interest of advancing this application, the items of incompleteness are identified below, followed by our technical review comments.

3. Key map showing the subject property and all lands within 500 feet thereof with existing streets, Rights of Way, easements and zone boundaries.  Please provide the requisite zoning map.

5. Plans should contain the following:

g.  Planning Board Application Number (when assigned)  Please publish application    number PMS/C 07-03 on the plans.

8. Current Survey (within 5 years)of the entire tract or property, prepared by a New Jersey licensed surveyor, showing the location of the proposed development, giving all distances and showing all roads abutting or traversing the property.  Development boundaries shall be clearly delineated.  The plans are based on a survey last revised in 2000.  We would offer no objections to any requests for relief from this completeness item.

9. List of waivers and variances requested or obtained (with the applicable ordinance sections.)  List of waivers or de minimis exceptions from the Residential Site Improvement Standards (with applicable reference sections) depicted on the cover sheet.  As the applicant is seeking relief for the height of the proposed sound barrier, this should be published on the plans.

10. A list of all property owners within 200 feet as disclosed by a current (within 6 months)certified list of the most recent tax records, including addresses and block and lot designations on the plans.  The property owner’s list should be published on the plans.

13. Existing and proposed streets, both public and private, showing the right-of-way width and width of the traveled way within 200 feet. The ROW and pavement width of Maple Avenue and Hook Mountain Road should be published on the plans, or a waiver sought.

14. Existing and proposed structures with uses, number of stories, dimensions and setbacks to all property lines.  The setback to the proposed sound barrier should be published on the plans.

16. Existing and proposed parking spaces and loading areas including evidence of compliance with ADA guidelines.  The applicant should ensure compliance with the ADA parking stall guidelines has been accomplished prior to the signing of any documents by Township Officials.

18. Existing physical features both onsite and within 100  feet of the tract including streams, wetlands, floodplains, railroads, bridges, drainage, trees over 18 inches dbh, utilities, public and private easements and reservations.  The plans should show the extent of the existing landscape screening along Maple Avenue and Hook Mountain Road, along with the proposed locations of any supplementary plantings.

19. 2’ contours onsite and 100 feet beyond the property lines.  Please provide the contour information along the Maple Avenue side of the property, in the vicinity of the proposed noise barrier, extending 100’ beyond the ends of the barrier and across Maple Avenue.  We have no objection to the use of public domain information ( Ie Morris County/Montville Township, etc. updated as appropriate).

21. Location of all structures with number of stories and uses within 100 feet of the property.  Please depict the existing dwellings within 100’ of the property lines.

25. The plans shall include the appropriate signature block.  Please publish the signature block shown in the Completeness Checklist.

28. Location of existing and proposed utilities onsite and within 100 feet of the site including:

    e.  Solid Waste Enclosures  The locations of the existing solid waste enclosures should be depicted, along with any proposed refuse and recycling accommodations.

29. Circulation plan showing:

    a.   Location of off-street parking.  The proposed striping of the (25) truck parking stalls along the Hook Mountain Road frontage must be shown.

30. Landscape Plan showing:

a.   Proposed Shade trees and landscaping including species and size of plant materials.  Please depict the proposed supplemental landscaping materials.
b.   Buffering plan showing berms, vegetation, fences including construction details.  Please depict the limits of the existing landscape screening, along with any areas that may need additional plantings in the area of concern.

31. Lighting plan showing:

a. Location of existing and proposed site lights.  The existing and any proposed lighting fixtures should be shown on the plans.

36. Sign Plan showing location of existing and proposed:

c.  Developments signs. Please provide information related to any proposed signage.

d. Appropriate sign details showing size, height, materials and lighting. Please   provide information related to any proposed signage.

Technical Comments:

The engineering site plans show a slightly different placement of the proposed sound barrier than that presented during the subcommittee meeting.  We would assume that this apparent oversight will be corrected and that the location discussed during the subcommittee is the location being advanced.

The site plans do not depict the proposed striping for (25) truck parking stalls within the front parking lot.  The plans should publish and demonstrate compliance with required minimum aisle widths.  The net loss of available parking should also be published, as well as demonstrating compliance with the parking ordinance.  Relief should be sought if necessary.

The plans should demonstrate compliance with the minimum parking setback to the building within the front parking area.  As the overnight parking of trucks within the front yard is not allowed within this zone (16.68.030.E), the applicable relief should be sought.

The plans should depict the requisite screening for those vehicle proposed to be parked within the Hook Mountain road parking lot.

Neither of the alternate site plan layouts presented depict loading on the southerly side of the building, which was discussed at length during the subcommittee meeting.  The applicant should be prepared to discuss the rationale behind this apparent omission.

The applicant should be prepared to discuss any anticipated phasing of operations within the existing building, along with any temporary impacts that may result.

The plans should include the anticipated total area of disturbance that would result from the proposed site improvements.

The plans depict the proposed installation of the sound barrier as (3) feet behind the existing curbing, which may require extensive trimming of the existing evergreen screening in order to construct.  Supplemental plantings on the Maple Avenue side of the existing berm may be required.

The applicant is proposing the installation of the 15 foot high sound barrier, in the area generally between the existing industrial buildings in order to achieve compliance with the State and local noise regulations.  The applicant should be prepared to discuss the parameter utilized in determining the proposed height of the sound barrier and whether a higher sound barrier would provide any additional benefit.

The applicant should be prepared to discuss what impact, if any, the replacement of the existing roof-mounted HVAC units would have on the sound levels at the property lines of the affected Maple Avenue residents.

Any revised plans should be accompanied by a cover letter addressing each of our comments on a point by point basis.  The cover letter should describe those required changes to the plans, as well as those not readily apparent. END OF REPORT (Note:  applicant received deeming of complete on August 29, 2006 Adrian Humbert, AICP report)


Steve Schepis, Esq. First Industrial; Paul DeLuca, VP of operations; Glenn Buie, First Industrial

Mr.  Schepis indicated summarized prior discussions.  Variance is necessary for height of wall/fence.  8’ permitted and 15’ proposed. 

Mr. Vohhees –professional sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.

Mr. Burgis:  ordinance doesn’t make a clear distinction between wall/fence.  There was no discussion with completeness.  There were planning details with completeness but none went with the substance. 

Asked board to waive the checklist waivers and deem application complete.  They were off-site issues.  Noting proposed except for sound barrier.   

Stan Omland, PE:  memo leads to a large technical deficiency.  The board indicated that waivers from checklist should be considered.  This application is incomplete and application must get waivers.  Difficult with not showing structures within 200’ and the impact this development has on this.  Most are technical but want to see surrounding residents and want to see testimony as to how homes are affected.  This is one item that engineering feels strongly.

Mr. Schepis:  have some handouts to respond to this. 

Stan Omland, PE:  from technical side of this, this does not meet specific requirements of the code, but can suffice to deal with his concerns.

Mr. Burgis:  point out that the waivers may be appropriate but that these should be statutorily addressed.  The issue of the wall and the proximity to the adjoining residents, and may be adequate an exhibit to respond to concerns raised. 

Michael Carroll, Esq.:  can hear an incomplete application and will hear this.

Aerial photo marked in as A1 2/8/07 handed out marked in as exhibit. 

Application is for a change of tenancy in building No. 20, which will involve modifications to the building on the western half of it.  The applicant met with the adjacent residents last Saturday to discuss the sound barrier to eastern portion of site.  Sound barrier is 15’ in height.  Moved it closer into the site so it didn’t affect the buffer.  It is closer in the site and is 15’ in height.  The wall will be located 3’ back from curb on inside of parking lot.  Deborah Nielson:  they are heavy spruce trees and will need to shear up 15’.  These are not minor. 

A2 – elevation – view from the Maple Avenue side of site and is existing condition – exhibit marked in 2-8-07

Landscaping consists of Norwood spruce and materials that have been elevated over the years.  There has been supplemental landscaping added on residential side of buffer. 

Mr. Schepis:  it is acknowledged there will be branch removal on inside of trees on Maple Avenue.  Those facing Maple Avenue will remain.  The applicant agreed to add more trees on Maple Avenue side.  Talking about 10’ on planting.  Would install additional evergreen plantings.  Ladis Karkowsky:  how much is being cut off the trees.  The heavy trees are inside the parking lot.  Solid barrier will be painted an earth-toned color with further landscaping installed. 

Stan Omland, PE:  are there specific plans on this?  Mr. Voorhees addressed this on exhibit.  Will agree to put in additional landscaping. 

Will propose to plant additional Norway spruce along buffer in addition to where sound barrier is located to fill gaps by installation of sound barrier.  These trees would be 8-10’ by plantings, as far as a quantity.  Looked at existing conditions and see that the barrier is in, would come up with something satisfactory to board and applicant.  Norway Spruce is the best, but would agree with board.

A1 exhibit discussed reflecting surrounding area and existing site.  Applicant indicated that they would agree to additional plantings, as well as the parking lot near 30 Hook Mtn. Road satisfactory to board.  John Rosellini:  look at the entire strip along Maple Avenue.   January 26, 2007 is date of exhibit.  Photo taken in 2007. 

Superimposed exhibit on A2 reflects wall and that it will be muted earth-toned colors.   Russ Lipari:  barrier being discussed was this selected as the best for the needs for the types of sound that would be produced to protect the neighbors. 

Gary Lewis:  what is useful life?  Mr. Voorhees:  life expectancy of about 30 years?  When everything grows in (T111 – pressure treated lumber) how do you maintain this?  Wants to know about durability of products.

Matthew Murello, PE - sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq. 

Credentials given.  Acoustical engineer. 

Gary Lewis:  which professional did the windload design.  Mr. Murello indicated that this info is product information.  It is a composite barrier which is a 2x4 or 2x6.  Manufacturer’s provided this.  Barrier is a post and panel design.  Panel slides in to ensure no gaps.  Selected for this project:  Hoover Treated wall plywall.  These barriers have the life of 30-40 years in a highway environment, but more for this since it isn’t highway.  Selected this because of the acoustical barriers.  It is a massive structure so it acoustically shields sound.  Aesthetic comes into play.  By reference, recommended smaller to larger and have had successful installations throughout NJ. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  did sound testings throughout the area:  did it on the east side of the parking lot.  Wanted to see other areas along Maple Avenue to be tested.  Wanted to see other areas?  In terms of existing sound levels, no.  On January 2, 2007, prepared a secondary letter that calculations were done at all of the homes along Maple Avenue.  Did do sound testing at various homesites.  Referring to A1, did do noise testing at all homes.

Ladis Karkowsky:  you feel wall and/or barrier is sufficient for this area and buildings will stop the sound on northwest corner.  One of figures submitted had a visual depiction of why the barrier was put where it was put.  The loading area is concentrated to four loading docks.  Purpose:  there is only one area not shielded acoustically by existing buildings; others are shielded by buildings themselves and to provide screening.  Residents that are north and south have sound attenuation and nothing can affect that.  He explained:  if you are in a flat area, it radiates out like a pebble in a pond.  If you attenuate noise on two-dimensional line of sight, everything else is lower than that.

Gary Lewis:  can you present to board staff a site that is within driving distance as to what represents the lives of the structure.    Can give a site that will give you guidance.

Mr. Schepis:  greatest concern was nighttime noise from this site.  Will the wall bring the noise into compliance with noise regulations?  Daytime operations are not the issue, so the purpose of the barrier and result from the noise of night operation will meet sound level requirements. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  how did you determine tractor-trailer sounds? 

Set up a device to measure for 24 hours to find out what the dominant noise factor is.  Second:  went to existing site in Hohokus early morning operation and did control movements of various trucks involved and took acoustical measurements of the activity and took highest sound levels, and basically all of the operations were measured and added and put into this site.  Only difference is ‘difference’.   You take shortest distance and make this worst-case scenario and used the operations at Winebow site.

Don Crane – Maple Avenue - sworn

Regarding the wall itself, how the measurements were taken, and all now that math is always right, however, when you build a wall and it doesn’t produce, what is concern, and if wall is built and it doesn’t meet the needs and there is a problem, we want to know how this problem could b e fixed. 

Deborah Nielson:  they are proposing the barrier 3’ on their curb line and did the neighbors had a preference on placement.  Residents would prefer to see where the wall is shown, and would prefer to see plantings done. 

Matthew Murello, PE:  at the meeting on Saturday with residents, he reviewed location of the barrier.  Is located due west and extended about 300 ft. along that property line.  Applicants did extend it by 50’ more feet towards northeast corner.  The location was shifted slightly south to provide full coverage towards Marts Lane and agreed to add another 50’ so it will be 350’.

Justine Lizza  – 52 Maple Avenue - sworn

They listened to our concerns and extended wall.  They attempted to make a good faith effort of providing additional landscaping to extend wall in length, and agreed to police their own truck noise, and indicated that they would comply.  Want assurances that the wall and landscaping be maintained and that the buffers remain in place.  As far as the wall, would like to see a heavily landscaped buffer.  Design and adequacy of wall should be reviewed and make sure it will do what it is intended to do.  If a 24-hour is permitted, want assurances that what are being proposed blocks noise intended.

Joel Grimmal – 48 Maple - sworn

If what they say they will do what they want to do, what if they don’t pay attention, and what will they do if they don’t behave.  Make sure it is done properly.  Trees dying.  Can they be assured they will meet what they agree to and who will follow up if they don’t? 

Matthew Murello, PE:  one of the concerns residents have is ‘what will sound level’s if this is approved and if it is 6 months to a year.  The applicant agreed that pending approval, company would offer to take measurements at night to provide compliance reports, and will verify that it does work.  If for some reason, there is an issue, and it becomes a noise complaint, the residents have a method to enforce it. 

Tract 4

Gary Lewis:  what is confident level.  Matt: have always met what was designed.

John Rosellini:  what is allowable decibel at night?  50dba is limit.  This is from 10-7.

Janet Kosgrove – Maple Ave – sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.

Planning Board asked to review A1, speaks to her property as the only one on the south section.  Was at the meeting on Saturday.  First Industrial has always been an excellent neighbor.  They offered to put in additional evergreen plantings.  Barrier they are suggesting will affect her.  The estimate of trucks is 68 decimals at Ms. Kosgrove’s house.  If planning to park trucks and trees don’t block, lights will shine every night from 1-3.  Have a clear view of 30 Hook Mtn. to parking area at 20 Hook Mtn.  Would like to rebut the comments heard, but have no expertise, and just raise questions. 

Matthew Murello, PE:  Noise being made in one place:  as you get closer to Rt. 80, noise is louder.  If you get noise at this area near Ms. Cosgrove’s is a lot higher.  Maximum noise is at either end, and her house is located at that point.  Ms. Kosgrove:  the ambient noise was registered on 12/27 and 12/28 that was a 3-day workweek.  Was this period of time representative since people were on vacation? 

Matthew Murello, PE:  Don’t know if trees will help at her location.  Trees will not attenuate sound even if you start out with 10’ trees and will it be any less than 68 decimals.

Thomas Porfido, Maple Ave. sworn

Located on the other end of the wall.  The noise will go around it.  Don’t believe that the Rt80 and the noise barrier will somehow eliminate the noise on this 24-hour operation.  Noise from Rt 80 is already loud, and having 24 hours is unacceptable.

Matthew Murello, PE:  in response to a question from Mr. Lewis, there will be no noise that will go around barrier.

Due to time constraints, this application Carried to:  February 22, 2007 with notice preserved.  

Planning Board asked for more information on trucks and expected increase in operation.  Was concerned after seeing Hohokus site.   Was concerned with aesthetics.  Didn’t want to see loading docks and trucks on the front of the building.  

John Rosellini: noise level at Ms. Cosgrove’s is in excess.  Will applicant respond to this issue.  Deborah Nielson:  assume it will be addressed.

Mr. Schepis:  Will agree to supply plantings, but may not be in a detailed evergreen planting plan, but will agree to variety and numbers.  Also will consider screening landscaping for location of box truck parking.

Motion to carry made by:  Russ Lipari, Seconded by: John Rosellini

Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty

MN06-04 – BECK – 15 Glenview Road – B: 31 L: 13 – Minor Subdivision & Associated Variances - Carried from 10-26-06 – New Notice Required & Acceptable                                                               ACT BY:  3/23/07

CARRIED W/NOTICE TO: 3/22/07 applicant’s request with an extension of time granted to 3/23/07





Motion to unanimously adjourn made by:  John Rosellini and Seconded by: John Visco

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

With explanation

Certified to 11-20-06

Certified to 11-20-06

Certified to 11-20-06

Must certify to missed meeting of 11-20-06

Must certify to missed meeting of 11-20-06

Must certify to missed meeting of 11-20-06


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack