PB Minutes 2-22-07 Print E-mail



195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Mr. Rosellini -present                           Mr. Karkowsky - present        

Ms. Kull - present                                Mr. Daughtry - present

Ms. Nielson - present                           Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari - absent                              Mr. Lewis - present

Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present               Mr. Hines - absent      

Mr. Witty (alt#2) - present









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

Housing Element Amendment – Discussion re: scheduling of public hearing – rescheduled to future agenda


PMISC07-03 Nutley Heating & Cooling – 5 Mars Ct. – B: 3, L: 38.5 – office (266 s.f.)/warehouse (3,340 s.f.) for wholesale distribution of heating and air conditioning equipment – 3 employees – hours of operation 7am-5pm Mon-Fri; Sat 8am-12pm – 1 14’ mini box truck to be parked overnight at loading dock - signage to be in compliance with approved theme

Approved subject to compliance with use letter, compliance with all agency findings and compliance with sign theme. 

PMISC07-05 II-VI – 20 Chapin Rd. Unit 1007 – B: 183, L: 7.2 – existing tenant office/warehouse for support of existing lab - taking additional 3,232 s.f office and 3,168 s.f. warehouse – no change in signage – no additional employees – no change in hours of operation (6am-6PM Mon-Fri) (First Industrial)

Approved subject to compliance with use letter, compliance with all agency findings and compliance with sign theme. 

PMISC07-06 Protection One Alarm – 20 Chapin Rd. Unit 1012 – B: 183, L: 7.2 – 25 employees – office (4,446 s.f.)/warehouse (3,122 s.f.) for electronic components – 25 employees – hours of operation 8am-5pm Mon-Fri. - no overnight parking of company vehicles – signage to be in compliance with approved theme (First Industrial)

Approved subject to compliance with use letter, compliance with all agency findings and compliance with sign theme. 

PMISC07-07 CMTI – 20 Chapin Rd. Unit 1002 – B: 183, L: 7.2 – office (1,500 s.f.)/warehouse (5,500 s.f.) for sales promotion company – 10 employees – Hours of operation 9AM-5PM Mon-Fri – signage to be in compliance with approved theme (First Industrial)

Approved subject to compliance with use letter, compliance with all agency findings and compliance with sign theme. 







Minutes of 2-8-07 – Roll call: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty

Motion to approve made by: John Visco

Seconded by: Tony Speciale 

Roll call vote: unanimous


Omland – O/E for: $440; $540 (Smart Future Planning); $360 (Smart Future Planning); Trust for: $120; $150; $300

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $60; $30; $30; $30; $60; $90; $60; $30; $30; $90; $90; $30; $180

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $468.75

Motion to approve made by: John Visco

Seconded by: Gary Lewis

Roll call vote: unanimous



Note:  Board members sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.


PMSP02-15-06-02 –WAUGHAW MOUNTAIN ESTATES III -Amended Preliminary  - Prior approval for: Block: 24, L: 3.02 - Waughaw Road – preliminary subdivision - 9 lots and remainder w/variance – Notice Acceptable & Carried from 11-20-06 & 12-14-06 agenda and 1-11-07 hearing – Eligible: Mr. Karkowsky, Ms. Kull, Deborah Nielson, Mr. Visco, Russ Lipari, Gary Lewis, Art Daughtry, Mr. Hines, Anthony Speciale (alt#1), Mr. Witty (alt#2)                         ACT BY: 2/23/07

Present:  Tom Scivo, Esq., Anthony Pio Costa, Adam Remnick, PE

Linda White summarized prior review conducted 1-11-07.  Mr. Remnick:  displayed sheet 2 of 3 of road profile.  What this display depicts is the existing grade line at 14% grade, which is what RSIS allows.  He indicated Stan Omland, PE noted a 16% grade would be allowed, thus fewer disturbances to grades in area.  Does not believe this road should be cut as recommended by Stan Omland, PE, noting only one new unit is on the non-conforming portion of this site. 

Discussion ensued on roadway and access to lots.  Roadway conforms to RSIS, and gently slopes.  Road to left is readily accessible.  Other roadway would be emergency roadway, involving only one new additional trip in access to west.

Benefit of reducing disturbance and re-establishing is outweighed by the testimony offered.  Second relates to roadway grade.  Worldview Drive at border between phase 1 and phase 3 discussed:  this area achieves a 16.4% slope, 16% is allowed, but applicant believes this 16.4% is reasonable exception.  Doesn’t want to remove trees and or existing pavement, feeling the .4 over code is insignificant.  He indicated he would also comply with all Mr. Omland’s report as to the phasing plan.

Common Driveway and discussions of waiver vs variances discussed.  There will be private sanitation pick up for all units in developments.  There will be one common driveway accessing 3 home sites (proposed lots 3, 4 and 5).  Applicant indicated he agrees to this application being amended subdivision and requests granting of common driveway variance.  This is a gated community. 

Stan Omland, PE:  As a private community, there are a number of services that won’t be provided for:  snow plowing, street lighting, garbage pickup, and Planning Board should concern itself to homeowners petitioning in the future for public roadways.

Ladis Karkowsky:  question of emergency access an concerns with access raised?  Mr. Remnick:  Fire Dept. indicated it could be accessed and report is on file with Planning Board.

Stan Omland, PE:  asked applicant to demonstrate connecting road and layout of other properties.  Applicant marked in:  exhibit Al – tract name and phasing plan that is same as sheet 7 in subdivision map.  Dated 2-22-07.  Interconnecting road is on north side of property.  At easterly end, this area complies with horizontal.  Location of proposed connection is similar in same grade that is up to 21%.  Asked if any studies were done to make road comply with RSIS.  Stan Omland, PE:  can lessen cuts and earth vegetation by taking profile and sliding up?  Why wasn’t this done?  RSIS says ‘where terrain’ makes it necessary, can go to 16%, how difficult can you achieve this 16% (6’ of maximum cut).  Appeared to be in 6-8’ range, but depends on where it is tied in.

Asking for exception of 21% and want to leave it at 16%, how many cars would use this section of site?  On an average day, particularly when more difficult to pass, anticipate no cars to pass on it.  Most houses front on conforming RSIS roadway.  One home on link, which is reflected on profile grade, is where driveway ties in?  In existing condition, it is a flat portion.  Recognize there is always a way in or out.  Applicant is asking 16% to 21%, which is something only the DCA can grant.  Absent response of profile grade, which driveway would use, 10 trips a day?  Does it rise or compel to agree that 21% is remote at this s are, and is not a problem, and can decide RSIS is worthy from 16 to 21; can say it is too steep indicating it can come down to 16 but at least 6’ of cut (possibly rock cut).  Function of costs & blasting is the prime issue.  Because of location, not too sure he would be that concerned and especially with one home.  Planning Board decision.  At the 3% profile grade, it provides (at the top) access for one lot and they have another way out.  10.2 trips are the RSIS specified trips per house.  Homeowner’s association required maintaining private roadways and driveways.  These facts must be reflected in POS.  Issues like homeowner’s association are still open.  There are a lot of issues open under this POS.   This can be a condition of and is required by final.

Deborah Nielson:  discussion ensued on ‘what if’ the road was closed off.  Gary Lewis:  if alternative is a cul de sac with a waiver request with one more lot that you could have on a cul de sac, would always favor that.  If weather is bad, he doesn’t go down River Road and Horseneck, and people adapt to change of weather condition.  I favor an access road at these grade vs potential alternatives.

Poll polled.  No problem with design.  Deborah Nielson and would never approve a 21% grade road.  Ladis Karkowsky:  seems the main concern to applicant was the cost.  Stan Omland, PE:  doesn’t expect additional expense is involved.  Mr. Remnick:  concerns to developer are possibility that you get a tunnel cut affect if you do this.   Ladis Karkowsky agreed with Deborah Nielson.  Majority ruled – granted 21% waiver.

Stan Omland, PE:  other area needing relief is located on World Drive, which is at 16.4%, and this area is not a large issue.  This slightly exceeds and can be corrected with far less problematic.  Is this area worthy of correction?  Stan Omland, PE:  believes the rules are there for a reason.  Believe compliance is there for a reason.  Stan Omland, PE:  no problem with this. Board Deborah Nielson – wants compliance as well as Ladis Karkowsky – Board polled on this issue:  majority approved.  Ms. Nielson and Mr. Karkowsky did not agree.  Felt standards should be met.

Common driveways:  profile of these driveways with 3 homes using driveway discussed:  can these cars maneuver?  How does snowplowing come into play since they are outside private development?  Driveway begins at 2% and goes to 10% and levels out at each unit at intersection, which is 5% grade.  Provided a turnoff area between homes on lot 5 and 4 and driveway is proposed at 15’ width.  That is 7 1/2 ‘ wide.  Typical space is 9’.  Two cars cannot pass on driveway. Minimum roadway was at 18’.  What about curbs/gravel coverage?  In terms of driveway width, increase to 18’, should be 14’ wide paved 2’ graveled shoulder’s.  John Rosellini:  Pond at Cobblestone was at 18’.  Art Daughtry:  recommendation is at 18’.  Applicant agreed to comply with this.  Will provide changes to reflect 14’ paved with 2’ on either side.  Moving truck:  can negotiate this area.  Driveway is 500’ longest.  3 parties:  homeowners’ to maintain all of the driveways and roadways. 

Phasing Plan: acceptable with changes as recommended.

Waughaw Road – assessment discussed.  Agreed to dedicate and improve along either side of each road.  Township engineer must establish the cost factor on improvement of roadway as part of overall road improvement costs.  Applicant must bond and/or provide work as per Township Engineer plans. 

Conservation easements:  applicant is providing conservation easements, exception being for the properties towards the north/east on backs of these lots that are for the three lots along this area.  This conservation area would encompass the rear yard setbacks to maintain.  One consideration discussed:  the portion of land that abuts lots in Kinnelon owned by Pio Costa.  Reason not to give is to allow this lot to have access into the property.  Leave a gap for access to Kinnelon.  Gap can be 75’.  Float for future use for a driveway to a single lot in Kinnelon.  Would come thru lot 9.  It was discussed the possibility of eliminating easement along lot 9.  On lot 8, there is little room for a conservation easement and construction behind a 2M home.  If you are putting conservation easement in, there is a problem.  Mr. Remnick:  house is l30’ from property line. Enough room exists on lot 8.  

Tract 4

Art Daughtry:  raising awareness of conservation easement.  Would put a smaller conservation easement on lot 8:  consider perhaps 25’.  Mr. Omland:  This is already cleared area, and is really no need to put a buffer.  Eliminate on lot 8 the conservation easement as well as the one for lot 9.

Board polled.  Board members agreed except for Deborah Nielson and Ladis Karkowsky who felt that the applicant should provide the conservation easements. 

Opened to public…


Motion to close to public made by John Visco; Seconded by: Marie Kull

Roll call vote: unanimous

Motion to approve a favorable form of preliminary approval providing for a ten year period for an overall project consists of 49 lots consisting of 366 acres of property on Waughaw Mountain with disturbance of 67 acres disturbed with a favorable form of resolution incorporating all findings of board, updated EIS, bonding and/or improvement of Waughaw Road as it relates to roadway improvements along road frontage of property, subject to one DA to encompass all phases and conditions, all other terms and conditions imposed on prior phases are to be complied with; common driveway variances, relief from RSIS, revise construction plan to comply with comments 6 thru 10 of Stan Omland, PE report, conservation easements as required, deed restrictions on future subdivisions, Public Offering Statement reflecting private roads/private sanitation, maintenance, etc., acknowledge of one lot in Kinnelon possible for single family dwelling off main roadway; exception from slopes,  blasting policy compliance if blasting involved,  increase common driveway to 18’ wide, with 2’ either side gravel remainder paved subject to revised drawings,  compliance with all agency findings and normal applicable provision of major subdivision, Highlands Approval, DEP approval, Morris County Soils, Morris County Planning Board.  Motion made by Art Daughtry, Seconded by: Gary Lewis

Roll call vote: Deborah Nielson – voted no based on her concerns on safety and cannot approve due to the 21% and 16.5% RSIS waivers of roadway which far exceeds road standards.  Mr. Karkowsky, Ms. Kull, Mr. Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Daughtry, Anthony Speciale (alt#1), Mr. Witty (alt#2)

Draft Resolution tentative for agenda of April 12th

Note:  Applicant maintains custody of exhibits

Professional Reports discussed this evening follow…

From:              Stanley T. Omland, PE, PP

Date:   February 20, 2007

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

1.         Conceptual Layout Plan Reconstruction of Intersection Driveway for RSIS Compliance, as prepared by Schoor DePalma of Parsippany, New Jersey consisting of (1) sheets dated February 9, 2007.

2.         Conceptual Road Profile Reconstruction of Intersection Driveway for RSIS Compliance as prepared by Schoor DePalma of Parsippany, New Jersey consisting of (1) sheet dated February 9, 2007.

3.         Conceptual Cross Sections Reconstruction of Intersection Driveway for RSIS Compliance, as prepared by Schoor DePalma of Parsippany, New Jersey consisting of (1) sheet dated February 9, 2007.

4.         Conceptual Profile Plan Reconstruction of World View Drive for RSIS Compliance, as prepared by Schoor DePalma of Parsippany, New Jersey consisting of (1) sheet dated February 9, 2007.

5.         Sequence of Construction Plan, as prepared by Schoor DePalma of Parsippany, New Jersey consisting of (1) sheet dated February 13, 2007.

6.         Addendum #4 to Natural Resources Inventory & Environmental Impact Assessment for Sky Top Estates, as prepared by Connolly Environmental of Island Heights, New Jersey, unbound, dated December 4, 2006.


The Planning Board, at the January 11, 2007 hearing, had requested the applicant provide two conceptual roadway sketches, one of the 21% connecting road between Phases II and III (Connecting Road), the other of the 16.4% extension of World View Drive near the Phase I and III connection, along with other outstanding information that was discussed at the November 20, 2006 hearing, prior to any decisions being made by the Board.  Based on our review of the submitted documents, we offer the following comments:

Conceptual Connecting Road Layout Plans:

The conceptual roadway slopes are shown at a maximum of 14% where the Residential Site Improvements Standards (RSIS) allow a maximum of up to 16% where topographic conditions are encountered.  Accordingly, the amount of cut depicted for the connecting roadway may be overstated.

Utilizing a 15% proposed roadway slope from the intersection of World View Drive and the proposed connector instead of 14% would result in much more manageable cuts and grading from the 12’ to 14’ cuts shown to a maximum of 6’.

It appears there is also opportunity to begin tapering the proposed connector roadway to the northwest (uphill) of the area studied that could further reduce the anticipated amount of cut required to still provide RSIS compliance.

Conceptual World View Drive Reconstruction Profile:

The profile indicates the section of roadway between stations 33+50 to 36+50 could be brought into compliance with the 14% roadway grade with modest cuts (up to 3.1’).  We would find this roadway profile as acceptable as shown.

Sequence of Construction Plan (to be referenced in the Developer’s Agreement):

The individual items contained in the enumerated sequence of construction should demarcate the ‘Tasks’ listed on the plan as a means of cross referencing those construction items that would take place during each ‘Task”.

Some indication of the time period for each construction item should be provided.

Any improvements to Waughaw Mountain Road required by the Township Engineer should be included in either the ‘Tasks’ or the list of individual construction items.  The requirements of those improvements shall be determined at the time the Developer’s Agreement is drafted.

The completion of the means of fire protection for the project should be included in the sequence of construction.

The applicant is reminded that the water quality method of treatment for proposed Empire Court entailed a vegetated filter strip adjacent to the roadway.  The filter strip must be established at least one growing season prior to accepting incoming stormwater flow, as described in the NJDEP BMP Manual.  We would recommend the construction and establishment of this stormwater feature be included in ‘Task 1’.

The stormwater discharges onto and through the residential lots should all be included in ‘Task 1’.  Specifically, the storm system associated with the Phase II plans (which must be shown on this plan), as well as the discharges on proposed lots 6 & 7 at the northerly end of World View Drive should be integrated.

The ‘Individual Lot Sequence of Construction’ list should contain a note relative to the establishment of the vegetative filter strip along Empire Court.  Any individual lot approvals would be subject to the ‘one growing season’ delay associated with the filter strip establishment.

Addendum #4 to NRI/EIS:

We believe the applicant’s professional has mis-identified the submitted document as an ‘Addendum’, resulting in confusion among the Board and it’s professionals.  We believe the document should be identified as ‘Revised’, as it speaks to all phases of the project and does not appear to supplement any previously submitted documents. 

We would request any future submissions of the NRI/EIS be bound.

The applicant’s professional had requested during each of the preceding phases, and the Board agreed, to allow those required changes to the NRI/EIS to be completed upon the approval of the final phase of the site development.  Questions and commentary on this evolving document from the Board professionals dates back to 2004.  As a means of verifying these required changes have been made to the NRI/EIS, we request the applicant’s environmental professional to provide a cover letter addressing the comments by the Board’s professionals, preferably chronologically in conjunction with the submitted application phases.  This will greatly minimize our review time ensuring compliance with these earlier comments.

A cursory review of the submitted document indicates there may be additional required changes.  For instance, on page 3, the Zone compliance table inaccurately lists the provided front yard building setbacks as 40’.

Any revised plans should be accompanied by a cover letter addressing 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

Joseph Burgis Report of 2-16-07:

Sky Top Estates – Subdivision Application

# PMSP02-15-06-02

Brook Valley Road, Block 24, Lot 3.02


The applicant, Sky Top Estates, has submitted plans to continue the subdivision of Block 24 Lot 3.02 for the purpose of creating single-family dwelling lots.  Previous subdivisions have created 36 new lots; this application would create 9 additional lots and a new cul-de-sac road for access to previously subdivided lots.  The applicant’s existing residence is to remain.  The 366.45-acre lot is located on the westerly side of NJ Highway Route 287, north of Waughaw Avenue and east of Stony Brook Road.  The site is a characterized by mountainous terrain with steep slopes, natural vegetation and some wetlands.  The site is in the R-120 Residential District, wherein single-family dwellings are a permitted use.   It is recognized that Burgis Associates is entering the proceedings regarding this proposal after an extensive period of review by the Board.  Nonetheless, are including some comments herein for the Board’s consideration.

Submission Details

The submission consists of the following items:

One (1) sheet entitled “Sequence of Construction Plan” prepared by Schoor Depalma, dated February 13, 2007;One (1) sheet entitled “Conceptual Profile Plan—Reconstruction of World View Drive For RSIS Compliance” prepared by Schoor Depalma, dated February 9, 2007.

Three (3) sheets entitled “Reconstruction of Interconnection Driveway for RSIS Compliance” prepared by Schoor Depalma, dated February 9, 2007;Traffic Impact Assessment report, prepared by Schoor Depalma, dated November 10, 2006; Thirty-three (33) sheets of Preliminary Major Subdivision prepared by Schoor Depalma, dated December 30, 2005 (not received by this office).

Revised Stormwater Management Report prepared by Schoor Depalma (not received by this office).

Review Comments

The following is noted for the Board’s consideration:

Retaining Walls.  At the last meeting, the issue of the secondary access with a slope exceeding 18% was discussed.  Mapping has been provided, which shows new ground cuts such that the road will now reach a maximum of 14% grade.  The applicant should be asked to provide information regarding retaining walls, specifically if and where they are proposed.

Adjacent Kinnelon Property. The Board has discussed access to the adjacent property in the Borough of Kinnelon that is owned by the applicant.  This issue does not appear to be addressed in the submittal that we have received.

Driveway for Lots 3, 4, and 5.  Proposed lots 3, 4, and 5 are to be accessed via one shared driveway.  This driveway may present a problem for service vehicles such as sanitation and emergency vehicles. The applicant should address how these vehicles are to maneuver this driveway for ingress and egress to and from these lots.  END OF REPORT

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 and Carried from 2-08-07 – Waivers Requested from Checklist Act by: 4/1/07 - Eligible:  Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty, Art Daughtry, Marie Kull Tony Speciale   Incomplete

(Note:  Tony Speciale stepped down)

Present:  Steve Schepis, Esq. Paul Anderson, PE, John Tuttle, Paul DeLuca & Matt Murello

Questions and comments on landscaping discussed.  Tom Vohrees testified to the revised landscaping plan.  Proposed upgrades consist of upgrades along certain areas providing for more evergreen plantings.  Areas upgraded reflected on plan and testified to.  Proposing to plant 44 additional trees on site and proposing to plant 7 additional plants on site.  From last meeting, entered this into record said exhibit reflecting Maple Ave. section of the site.  A1 enhanced landscaping wall – dated 2-22-07

Explained how he took picture of buffer and superimposed wall into photo.  Looked at 3-5 year growth on plantings and inserted into the view as per landscape plan provided.  Based on this presentation, believe in 3 to 5 years wall only be partially viewed.

A2 – enhanced landscaping plan – Hook Mtn. Road – 2-22-07 – entire buffering displayed. 

A3 – proposed conditions at 30 Hook Mtn. Road – marked into exhibit:  this view represents that adjacent residents will be out of sight and not an issue to the development.

Ladis Karkowsky:  sound barrier discussion:  the existing trees for this sound barrier location, how far is the wall from the boughs existing?  Wall is 3’ behind existing wall.  Whatever pruning will be minor.  Norway Spruce is down to the ground on the curbside.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP and Stan Omland, PE will use Landscape AICP on site to determine plantings.  Whatever is proposed in plan is subject to field modification based on agreement based on acceptable conditions.  Any branches that would have to be pruned would be on applicant’s side of berm.  All other landscaping will be on residential side.  Installation of wood would be in a dug hole.  Cutting back branches 3-4’ won’t kill trees on parking lot trees.  Aren’t you going into stem section of tree is where losing visual screening.  Overall density of a tree is what adds to the tree.  If you cut a tree in half, visual density is not the same.  There is a reduction in density of the tree’s visual buffering.  That is where supplemental plantings work and can provide density.   Additional 44 trees will buffer area.  Agreed to maintain buffering.  Art Daughtry:  board professionals will assess this.  Put funds on deposit.

Fence will be a dark brown.  Art Daughtry:  were vines ever considered?  Vines grow quickly.  Wall needs to be stained and maintained.  Once trees are planted, they will grow.  Norway Spruce grows fast. 

Stan Omland, PE:  cutting limbs back only to install wall.  This tree will grow back into the wall.  Want assurances that this wall is maintained in perpetuity and should be by deed restriction.  These are fit panels. These can be taken out, stained and returned.  Recognize that this is not going to be maintained.  Gary Lewis:  pre-supposing what should be done.  Board should say it should be maintained.

John Rosellini: what if noise isn’t addressed.  Stan Omland, PE:  did represent that there are things that they will agree to.  Have no problem with this wall, but Art Daughtry wants assurances to maintain wall and landscaping.  Mr. Schepis:  agreed to maintain this wall, and indicated if there is a problem with the wall maintenance, is an enforcement officer.  Memorialized by deed notification covering overall and would also contain removal clause.  Bonding would be required.

Deborah Nielson:  3’ between edge of wall and landscaping, what is being done to parking lot.  Lawn.  Sight line shows soft trees. 

Glen Buie:  would install decorative and board professionals would review at this level also.

Ms. Kosgrove:  59 Maple Ave.  – One of the tings that make the berm along Maple Avenue is that it is a mixture of trees, not just Norway Spruce giving variety to evergreen buffer, more pleasing to the eye.  Would want to see existing theme carried thru.  Deborah Nielson:  our board professionals need to address this, especially if they are all 44 one type of tree, over $20,000 and can work with board professionals on putting different species in.

Fran Krane:  if trees die, are the stumps removed.  Linda White:  Code requires it.

John Tuttle – sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.

Testified to maintenance issues since l974, including landscaping, etc.  Testified to area in front of 20 Hook Mtn. Road and parking of delivery vehicles.  Bergen Brunswick parked vans in this area. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  difference in types of vans of Bergen Brunswick – not the same relative to types of vehicles stored in this area

Paul Anderson, PE – sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.

Professional engineer – Professional Engineering – testified before this board and was previously certified as an expert. 

Site improvements proposed:  350’ long 50’ off property line on Maple Avenue.  There are modifications to loading dock area, and existing retaining wall about 100’ which will be moved closer to Hook Mtn. Road to allow loading docks to be moved inside.  Trailers will be brought into the building and overtime loading will take place inside building.  An overhead door will be installed to allow more trucks to go in and this is closer to Hook Mtn. Road. 

Plan displayed LI – there are 25 parking spaces in this facility.  There are double bay of parking for passenger cars, proposing to eliminate parking cars on Hook Mtn. Road and just have trucks parked at night only.  25 spaces are shown?  Designed for either way. 

2/20/07 Omland memo discussed:  size of aisle – will comply with Omland’s report.

Operator/owner Paul DeLuca:  described operation.  John Rosellini:  explain LTL.  They are an import operation with 6 to 8 deliveries.  Art Daughtry:  product comes into a warehouse.  During day, receive 2-4 per day.  4-6 takes partial loads cross-country so there are 10-11 daily deliveries at a maximum.  There are box trucks loaded at night and leave in the morning. This operation is Tuesday thru Friday. 

The northeastern side of building will be daytime operation.  There are 28 doors. The door no. 1 is closest to Hook Mtn.  Road and door #23 is on northeast is near Maple.  1-14 doors will be used during the day.  Tractor-trailers activity is limited to no later than 8PM – no earlier than 7AM.  Will be required to monitor trucking activities.

Saturday and Sunday operations not normal but may during seasonal activities/busy times.

Loading docks in evening:  plan on using 2 with capacity to go to 4.   The receiving will be interior.    Generator:  Hook Mtn. Side is where this accessory structure is located.

Tract 5

Box trucks:  25 trucks – they have 19 leased trucks.  John Rosellini:  willing to accept a list of conditions.  The Planning Board spoke about the Rt. 80 side and realizes concerns. We have basic sound readings, and if we make this reading a condition of approval that sound testing be made on basic readings, and we go by scientific tests, wouldn’t we want to make some back up provision, i.e. that these loading docks be moved to the other side of the building if noise continues to be in violation?

Mr. Schepis:  acknowledge that there is a condition of approval, and that they would want that to be the chance to come back to Planning Board for further review and resolution of the noise issue.  Applicant agreed to come back to Planning Board for further consideration if wall doesn’t work: 

Mr. DeLuca indicated that his operation is slated to start operation on April 19.  Planning Board voiced concerns about impact to residents in view of noise issues discussed.

Glenn Buie:  the building permit process and plans will be drawn and submitted to township and this will take 90 days to get thru.  He noted he spoke to Brian Laird, and this can be done locally.  The entire wall will not be finalized until August.  The Planning Board asked:  Can Winebow operate at night without noise?  Or not operate at night until wall is constructed.

Mr. DeLuca:  operator cannot do this.  Gary Lewis:  interior permits will take time.

Art Daughtry:  they don’t they make a temporary sound wall. 

Matt Murello:  Noise Expert –no, not of that size.  Existing noise levels without barriers the highest is around 62 decimal, when they move, obviously the noise will go louder.  Making about a 10-12 decimals reduction with installation of a wall.  There is no idling and operation when they are up to docks.  There will be sound levels that exceed but only intermittedly.  Trucks do not idle while loading. 

He noted that the applicant also agreed referring to SA1, applicant agreed to install at request of resident along Hook Mtn. Rd. on north side of lot another sound wall.  Looking at a shorter barrier from northwest Hook Mtn. Road.  This issue cannot be discussed at this time in view of variances not noticed for.  It would have to be a separate application if this was to go further.

Concerns on sound wall not being constructed discussed.  John Rosellini:  what would readings be at resident’s home.  Mr. Murello:  would be the just over nighttime noise regulation.

John Kramer:  voiced concerns about not having wall at this time.

John Rosellini:  can we approve something even on a short basis that is clearly in a noise violation, and what do we become subject to?

Janet Kosgrove:  how many months would you willing to have sleep disturbed by intermediate noise.  Read a letter prepared for record.  Asked:  Can you regulate by noise ordinance eliminating 24-hour operations.  Sound studies presented by Goodfriend are flawed.  If wall were effective, engineers would have come before board with strong numbers and want assurance noise is mitigated, and where are specifications that walls work.  Fire Prevention report reviewed.  Does not feel that the fire officers know of new circulation.  Wants assurance of additional landscaping on Hook Mtn. to satisfaction of board engineer/planning.  Wants assurance that the Planning Board will revisit sound study following wall being installed.  Doesn’t feel sound study should be conducted by installer of wall; should be sound expert.  She distributed a copy of her property survey of her property distributed.  Decimal reading is at 68 decimals, 18 above permitted. 

John Rosellini:  Planning Board doesn’t have ability to permit violation of sound code. 

Glenn Buie:  moving loading in front doesn’t work. 

Mr. Murello:  The noise wall would be required and installed.  After noise is installed, the tenant is installing their conveyer system, and once achieved, there would be compliance.  Up to that point, there would be not what is expected of testimony.  Have no temporary solution.

Ladis Karkowsky:  can only operate till 10PM until walls are constructed.

Mr. DeLuca:  poll board on nighttime operations.  Mr. Murello:  they would stack containers in the area east of the generator to be temporary noise west of this generator.  It is a temporary solution and would it guarantee, no, but is an improvement. 

Mr. DeLuca:  as a temporary solution, they can run conveyors out the front of the building, and put one truck in and once permanent with sound wall, then they will remove to the other side of building. They will run a temporary conveyor at their expense on rt. 80 side and replace some of landscaping to load trucks for 24 hour while doing inside operations, and as we build permanent solution in front will use two loading doors while the sound wall is being built and upon completion, will transfer operation to the other side and redo Rt. 80 façade. 

Art Daughtry:  confirmed that up until the point when the sound wall as discussed by this board and leasing agent is in place, operations will be at the front of the building for nighttime operations only from 7:30PM till 2.  No operations at the loading docks.  No operations at back of building from 8PM till 7PM.  Applicant concurred it will make more sense using the Rt. 80 side at this time, confirming all operations are from Rt. 80 side until adjustments/final wall constructed.  The condition of the testing of sound measures will need to be very firm in the resolution document, and should be sound expert.  Applicant also redirected to the Fire Department for any alteration of the site, especially as it relates to the temporary operations.  The Planning Board will need a memo reflecting their findings.  t. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  summarized that this is a temporary operation, also noting that the resolution has to be very restricting in deed notification for future users, along with maintenance of landscaping, additional landscaping and other items testified to by applicant. 

Rick Vanderbeck – 1 st Industrial thanked the board for their help in this approval.

Motion to close made by John Visco, Seconded by: Deborah Nielson

Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Leigh Witty, Art Daughtry, Marie Kull

It was understood that Ms. Koskove’s wall would be separate from this document and not part of the approval document. 

Motion to approve made by John Rosellini:  subject to compliance with testimony/field inspections/landscaping and maintenance provisions/deed notification/noise testing procedures, normal compliance and all testimony of record and compliance with all agency findings, hours of operation as stipulated, temporary operation permitted on Rt. 80, abandonment and refacing of this elevation after completion of sound wall   Seconded by:  Art Daughtry 

The record reflects there will be temporary warehousing – 9-5 dead storage only.

Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Leigh Witty, Art Daughtry, Marie Kull

Resolution scheduled for adoption on 3-22-07 Agenda.

At this time applicant indicating he would be proceeding at his own risk without obtaining interior building permits for renovation work.  Planning Board had no comment.

Professional reports discussed this evening follows:

Stan Omland, PE report of February 20, 2007…

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

1.         Landscape Plan, as prepared by Professional Planning and Engineering, Inc of Cedar Knolls, New Jersey, consisting of one (1) sheet dated January 26, 2007, revised through February 12, 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.

The applicant had requested relief from a majority of the completeness checklist items, which we offer no objections to.  Accordingly, based on our review of the above referenced documents we find the application to be technically COMPLETE for engineering issues. 

The landscape plan and previously submitted site plan should be combined into a plan set.  The application number, PMS/C 07-03 should be published in the title block.

The submitted landscape plan depicts an additional (44) Norway spruce 8’-10’ tall and (7) Ash trees at key areas around the site to supplement the existing landscaping.  The plan also appears to address our prior comment relating to the screening of the parking lot along Hook Mountain Road, as well as the addition of supplemental plantings along the Maple Avenue frontage.

The landscape plan should contain a note indicating that upon completion of the sound barrier, landscaping along the Maple Avenue frontage shall be field coordinated with the Township of Montville to ensure the supplemental plantings would have their maximum screening effectiveness.

This office had requested the location of the adjacent residential buildings be depicted on the plans.

The property owner’s list should be published on the plans, along with the correct signature block.

The plans should publish the variance relief sought in the zone compliance chart.   

The applicant had indicated they would extend the length of the proposed sound barrier an additional 50 feet towards the northeast corner of the site (towards Rt. 80).  The plans have been revised to reflect this additional length.

The applicant’s professional had offered testimony regarding post approval compliance reports.  The applicant should provide an anticipated framework, including but not limited to the day of the week, the time of day, the location of the test locations, etc., to the Board Professionals, as well as the Board of Health for review and comment.

While the site plans depict the proposed striping for (25) truck parking stalls within the front parking lot, we believe (23) striped parking stalls to be more reasonable.  The submitted plans depict an unacceptable reduction in access aisle width at the northerly driveway throat that would result in the loss of at least (2) truck parking stalls.  

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 and included in the zone compliance chart.

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, as previously requested.

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

Joseph Burgis Report dated 2-6-07…


The applicant, First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., is proposing a number of modifications to their existing industrial site plan in order to attenuate the noise generated from the operations on-site.  The proposed amendments include the erection of a 15 foot high, 300 foot long sound wall* along Maple Avenue, modification to the building’s interior to provide for internal loading bays to serve one unit, and the replacement of the existing roof-mounted HVAC units with quieter units.  Other proposed improvements include a reconfiguration of the parking area to allow for additional truck spaces.  Hook Mountain Road, Maple Avenue and Route 80 bound the property.  It is identified as Block 169 Lots 2 and 3 according to municipal tax records.  The site is in the I-1A Industrial District, wherein wholesale distribution centers and warehouses are permitted uses.  “C” variances are required for the sound wall with respect to yard setback, wall height and construction, as well as parking aisle width.

Submission Details and Completeness

The submittal consists of the following:

Two (2) sheets of site plan alternatives, prepared by PPE Engineering, dated January 26, 2007.

One (1) sheet of architectural plans, prepared by Potter Architects, dated January 25, 2007.

One (1) sheet of sound wall details, prepared by Potter Architects, dated January 10, 2006.

Eight (8) sheets entitled “Photo Display: Area of Proposed Fence”.

Two (2) sheets of photo simulation of proposed sound wall.

“Exterior Noise Evaluation of Proposed Winebow, Inc. Facility Operations” report, prepared by Lewis S. Goodfriend & Associates, dated January 11, 2007.

The applicant has requested a number of waivers from §16.16.020 Schedule F Checklist, as listed below.  Given the nature of the application, waivers may be appropriate for many of these items.  However, the applicant must still provide a basis for each of the waiver requests.

Key map showing property and lands within 500 feet.

List of property owners within 200 feet.

Existing and proposed features both on-site and within 100 feet.

Location of all structures with uses and number of stories within 100 feet.

Front, side and rear setback lines based on zone requirements. 

Plans and design calculations for stormwater management systems or facilities.

Circulation, landscape, lighting, and sign plans.

Copies of existing and proposed covenants and/or deed restrictions. 

Review Comments

1.         Property Description.  The 17.47-acre site is located on Hook Mountain Road.  The property is triangular in shape, with 755 feet of frontage on Hook Mountain Road, 1,233 feet of frontage on Maple Avenue, and 1,276 feet of frontage on Route 80.  The property is occupied with two industrial buildings, containing multiple tenants.

Proposed Development.  The applicant proposes a number of modifications to the existing site plan in an effort to attenuate the noise generated from the various operations on-site.  The following is noted for the Board’s consideration:

a.         Sound Wall.  The applicant proposes to construct a 15’ high, 300’ long sound wall along the Maple Avenue frontage in order to mitigate the sound that would emanate from the loading activities of a potential new tenant, Winebow, Inc., a wine importer and wholesale distributor.  The wall is to be made of 3 inch thick pressure treated wood and erected adjacent to the parking area along the Maple Avenue frontage, which the site shares with a residential zone.  The following is noted with respect to the proposed sound wall:

i. There appears to be a discrepancy regarding details of the construction of the sound wall.  Whereas the photo simulation and the section detail located on the site plan prepared by PPE Engineering shows a 15’ high wall above an existing earthen berm of nominal height, the sound wall details prepared by Potter Architects show an 8’ high wall above a 7’ high earthen berm.  The applicant should clarify this discrepancy for the Board.

ii. The Exterior Noise Evaluation report prepared by Goodfriend & Associates states that “it is necessary to install a noise barrier approximately 300 feet in length” and that the barrier “must have a total height of approximately 15’ off the grade of the site’s driveway”.  Although the report provides calculations showing that the proposed wall will, in fact, reduce sound levels to comply with NJDEP regulations, it does not provide calculations as to why a height of 15’ and a length of 300’ are necessary.  The applicant should provide testimony as to how such height and length estimates were determined and whether they are sufficient to protect all of the affected properties along Maple Avenue.

iii. The plans note that post and footing design will be per manufacturer’s specifications.  It is recommended that the applicant provide the Board with stability calculations to ensure safety.    

iv. The site plan shows the sound barrier will be located 3’ behind the existing curbing adjacent to the parking area on site.  From the aerial and site photographs provided, it appears the placement of the fence is very close to those of the evergreen screening trees.  The applicant has stated that some trimming of tree branches facing the site is to occur.  The applicant should demonstrate that the construction of the fence will not require the removal of any trees, nor will the trimming of the trees reduce the visual screening they are intended to provide.  Landscaping should be augmented such that the view of the sound wall from the adjacent residences will be minimally intrusive.

b. Landscaping.  It is recommended that additional evergreen trees be provided along the entire length of the proposed sound wall.  Although several evergreen trees have been proposed in this area, a continuous, staggered row should be planted 15’ on-center.  A mixed evergreen assortment of Norway Spruce, White Pine, White Fir, Douglas Fir, and Colorado Blue Spruce should be considered.  These trees should have a minimum height of 8-10 feet at time of planning, and 10-12 feet in areas where existing vegetation behind the row is sparse.  It is also advised that the row of evergreens extend 2-3 trees on each end of the sound wall to provide additional screening from residences further northwest and southeast on Maple Avenue.

c. Architectural Modifications.  The applicant is also proposing to make architectural modifications to the existing industrial building so as to provide for internal loading bays, such that loading can occur within the confines of the building.  These modifications are proposed for the northwest corner of the southernmost building on-site, which is shown as Unit 101-A.   The proposal includes the installation of three new motorized roll-up steel doors and the regrading of pavement to allow trucks to drive in, the blocking-up of existing doors with concrete block and brick veneer, as well as the replacement of a retaining wall with a new wall approximately 70-75 feet to the west.  No details regarding the proposed grading plan and retaining wall have been provided.

d. HVAC Units. The applicant proposes to replace the existing older roof-mounted air conditioning units with more modern, quieter units.  The applicant should submit information regarding the location and details of these proposed units. 

e.Parking Modifications.  The applicant also proposes modifications to the parking area in the southwest corner of the site.  Two different alternatives are provided.  Alternative #1 proposes the removal of 47 parking spaces along the west side of the southernmost building on-site, which are to be replaced with 25 truck spaces measuring 10’ x 28’.  This alternative also includes the reconfiguration of some curbing in this area.  Alternative #2 proposes the removal of 52 parking spaces along the south side of the southernmost building on-site, which are also to be replaced with 25 truck spaces measuring 10’ x 28’.  It is noted that §16.28.030B4(a) requires that a 24’ wide aisle be provided wherever there is 90° parking. It appears that neither of the proposed alternatives comply with this requirement.  Alternative #1 shows that the drive aisle would be reduced to as little as 12’ at the northern end of the proposed truck spaces.  Alternative #2 shows that the drive aisle would be reduced to approximately 22’ at both ends of the proposed truck spaces.  The applicant should provide testimony as to why the 24’ width requirement cannot be complied with and what impact the proposed aisle widths would have on site circulation. 

Zoning.   The site is in the I-1A Industrial District, wherein the proposed use is permitted.  The ordinance’s area and bulk requirements, and the submittal’s level of compliance, is detailed in the table below:





Minimum Lot Area (sf)




Maximum Lot Depth (ft)




Minimum Depth—Corner Lot (ft)




Minimum Lot Width:

     At St Line (ft)

     At Bldg Line (ft)







Minimum Setbacks (ft):


         @ residential zone


     Side, One

     Accessory Structure @ res. zone















65-70 (v)

Minimum Bldg Distance to R Zone




Maximum Bldg Ht (st/ft)




Maximum Coverage:

     Bldg (%)

     Impervious (%)



35 (e)

71 (e)

35 (e)

71 (e)

Maximum Floor Area Ratio (%)


35 (e)

35 (e)

(e) – existing nonconforming condition   (v) – variance required

The following is noted for the Board’s consideration.  Where variances are noted, the applicant must identify the basis for variance relief.

Yard Requirement.  According to §16.44.200M of the municipal ordinance, fences and walls are to be considered accessory structures.  §16.44.100B(3) requires that accessory structures meet the minimum yard requirements for principal buildings, which is 100 feet when adjacent to a residential zone.  The proposed sound wall is to be constructed within 65-70 feet of the Maple Avenue frontage, thus requiring a variance for the fence. 

Wall Height.  §16.44.200O(2) prohibits walls or fences exceeding a height of eight (8) feet, whereas the applicant is proposing a wall height of 15 feet.  A variance is required. 

Wall/Fence Construction.  Although the ordinance does not provide a distinction between “wall” and “fence”, §16.44.200P and Q provide different requirements for their construction.  The former requires that walls be constructed of stone, brick, concrete or cinder block only.  The latter permits wood fences, but prohibits a single solid wood panel between supports unless said section is 40 percent open.  The proposed solid wood sound wall would require variances from either definition. 

Parking Aisle Width.  §16.28.030B4(a) requires that a 24’ wide aisle be provided wherever there is 90° parking.  As previously noted, the applicant is proposing a minimum aisle width of 12 feet on alternative site plan #1 and a minimum aisle width of 22 feet on alternative site plan #2.  In either case, a variance is required per §16.68.010, which mandates compliance with the site plan ordinance’s parking regulations.  

Statutory Criteria.   The MLUL sets forth the statutory criteria for “c” variance relief.  As detailed above, there are several variances required for the proposed amended site plan pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c).  An applicant requesting a c(1) variance must demonstrate where (a) by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property, or (b) by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or physical features uniquely affecting a specific piece of property, or (c) by reason of an extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or the structures lawfully existing thereon, the strict application of any regulation pursuant to article 8 of the MLUL would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the developer of such property.

            An applicant requesting a c(2) variance must prove the following: 1) that the granting of the variance will advance the intents and purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law; 2) that the benefits of granting the variance substantially outweigh any potential detriments; and 3) address the negative criteria. Pursuant to court decisions concerning the c(2) variance, the applicant must show how the proposal represents a better zoning alternative for the property than the existing requirements of the district. In addressing this issue, the applicant must show how the deviation would benefit the surrounding neighborhood or community as a whole.  END OF REPORT

Note:  Tony Speciale returned to meeting                                                                                 





Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion by John Visco, Seconded by: Marie Kull.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

With explanation

With explanation

Certified to 11-20-06

Must certify to 2-8-07

Must certify to 2-8-07

* The term “wall” is included in the township ordinance’s definition of “fence”.  As such, “wall” and “fence” will be used interchangeably throughout this memo.


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack