MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2007
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
Witty (alt#2) - Present
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Wellhead Protection Ordinance – Discussion - Stan
Linda White summarized prior review/activity on this subject
dating back over several years, including joint meetings with Planning Board
The report issued by Stan Omland, PE dated 2-8-07 on this
of Environmental Commission Proposed Wellhead Protection Ordinance / Amendments
to the Critical Water Resources Ordinance
Copies to: Environmental Commission
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
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
TO LAND USE ORDINANCE
Chapter 16.04.040 shall be amended to include the
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.
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
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..
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
16.44.290 Development standards in the critical water
resources (CWR) district.
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
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
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,
Water supply needs
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
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
this ordinance should also be done geographically so that the zoning map
reflects it is the entire CWR zone.
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
RESCHEDULED TO: 3-8-07
Amendment to R27D Zone – Child Care Use discussions:
John Rosellini abstained
Report received and under discussion from Joseph Burgis,
dated: 1-23-07 follows:
Zoning Amendment Regarding Child Care Centers
Date: January 23,
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
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
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
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
Minimum Lot Area: 40,000
Minimum Lot Width: 150
Minimum Lot Depth: 150
Minimum Front Yard: 50
Minimum Side Yards: 25
Minimum Rear Yard: 50
Minimum Perimeter Buffer: 25
feet of planted buffer area along side & rear lot lines
Maximum Building Coverage: 20
Maximum Impervious Coverage: 55
Maximum Building Height: 2
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.
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.
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.
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
Gary Lewis: motion
made authorizing Mr. Burgis to develop a draft ordinance incorporating concerns
and findings of board
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?
explained the Board is looking at this use as being a permitted activity
in an R27D zone.
objected to any change from prior use and activity on the Montville
This matter was carried to: March 22nd
(Note: John Rosellini returned to meeting)
Height Ordinance –
Report dated 2-6-07 issued by Burgis Associates discussed
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.
is offered for consideration:
There are two
operative definitions that merit attention, along with the Schedule of District
Regulations’ Building Height limit, as follows:
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.”
defines “finished grade” as “a reference plane representing the average of
finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls.”
of District Regulations typically imposes maximum permitted heights of 30 to 35
feet in the municipality.
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.
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.
accompanying illustration depicting manner the measurements would be made: .
The following draft ordinance is offered for consideration:
County, New Jersey
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
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
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
Township of Montville seeks to establish such controls regulating the heights
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.
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.
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
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
Rezoning Discussion – Rt. 46/All Brand – Cost
proposal –Burgis Assoc. – Carried to: next meeting
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
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,
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
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:
plans and elevations prepared by James P. Cutillo Associates, of Pompton
Plains, New Jersey, consisting of three (3) sheets, dated February 3, 2006,
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.
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.
prior applications, the Board may wish to consider whether the on-site wetlands
and transition areas should be encumbered by a conservation easement.
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.
(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
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.
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.
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
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
Pattern of people entering this site reviewed. Took a 55’ trailer and circulated around
site to accommodate this size truck.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
discussed and confirmed that road salts will not be used at these
bins. Mr. Hoff: will not have salt bins on this site.
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.
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.
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
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.
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,
Applicant granted an extension of time for board to vote to
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
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,
elevations and floor plan, as prepared by Potter architects of Union,
Noise Evaluation, as prepared by Lewis S. Goodfriend & Associates of
Whippany, New Jersey, dated January 11, 2007 and supplement dated January 23,
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
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
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.
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
Solid Waste Enclosures The locations of the existing solid waste
enclosures should be depicted, along with any proposed refuse and recycling
29. Circulation plan
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
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
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.
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
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
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
–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.
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
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
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
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.
PE: are there specific plans on
this? Mr. Voorhees addressed this on
exhibit. Will agree to put in
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Karkowsky: how did you determine
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
noise level at Ms. Cosgrove’s is in excess.
Will applicant respond to this issue.
Deborah Nielson: assume it will
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
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:
CARRIED W/NOTICE TO: 3/22/07 applicant’s request with an
extension of time granted to 3/23/07
unanimously adjourn made by: John
Rosellini and Seconded by: John Visco
Linda M. White
to missed meeting of 11-20-06
to missed meeting of 11-20-06
to missed meeting of 11-20-06