PB Minutes 4-26-07 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Mr. Rosellini – entrance noted                 Mr. Karkowsky - absent

Ms. Kull - present             Mr. Daughtry - absent

Ms. Nielson - present             Mr. Visco – present – Acting Chair

Mr. Lipari - absent              Mr. Lewis - present

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

Mr. Witty (alt#2) - absent

Also present:

Carl Nelson, Esq. for Michael Carroll, Esq.

Stan Omland, PE

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP







Carried Hearings Announced: PSPP/FC06-25 Sharpe Health & Fitness – Indian Ln. – B: 32, L: 24.1 – Development – Carried to: May 10, 2007


Linda White summarized activity at the Board of Adjustment noting:

St. Pius Church – is scheduled for the June 6th Board of Adjustment meeting.  The church is requesting amended pre/final site plan for construction of a scaled down version of the site plan/variances previously approved – D variance for building height of 49.4’ (previous approval was 57.4’) vs 35’ allowed; D variance for steeple height of 82.4’ vs 45’ allowed; c variance maximum impervious coverage 247,387 s.f. (218,175 s.f. existing) vs 13,600 s.f. allowed; minimum parking spaces required 591 where 385 proposed; minimum parking setback to building 10’ permitted where 6.5’ proposed; wall height permitted is 6’ where 6.5’ proposed; design waiver for slope disturbance

The board will also hear at this same meeting the Anton Co.application – 1275 Bloomfield Ave. – B: 181, L: 1 – minor subdivision/prel/final site plan with Use and bulk variances for construction of a 2 story mixed use commercial building, all of which except for entrance will be in Fairfield. 

On the agenda for July 5th at the Board of Adjustment is Hook Mountain Care Center Hook Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4  - preliminary/final site plan/use variance/bulk variances for construction of a 4 story, 75,538 s.f.  Assisted living facility containing 120 nursing beds and 60- residential health care beds. Use variances required for height and use not permitted in zone. 

The Board of Adjustment denied the FAR use request for ZSPP/FDC33-06 Casha & Casha – 115 Horseneck Rd. – B: 139.03, L: 7.03 and,

Boiling Springs located in front of Red Barn is before Board for interpretation as to intensification of pre-existing non-conformity of bar use

Gary Lewis:  EDC liaison indicated that at the last meeting of the EDC, the members expressed great appreciated to the Planning Board for approvals of Winebow.  They are grateful for the quick review expended and the Planning Board balanced approach of residential concerns.


Ordinance Permitting Aged Restricting Housing - Old Bloomfield Avenue – B: 160, L: 4– Hook Mountain Associates – Linda White indicated that this matter has been rescheduled to the May 10th agenda of Planning Board.  Mr. Burgis indicated he will not be present this evening and that his associate will be present and will be prepared to discuss this.  Robyn Welch

Discussion re:  Height Ordinance – update - Prior Discussions 2-08-07 – illustration will be added to this ordinance on profiles.  Deborah Nielson:  how would this be affected town wide.  Mrs. White summarized that several reviews were conducted.  2 of 3 of the larger homes would have required a variance under the new code.  Anthony Petrillo was asked to take a composite all over the township of some of the larger homes on both small/large lots; some were on Patrick Court, Changebridge Road, Towaco areas, along with some pending at the Board of Adjustment for other types of variances, one of which may now need a height variance if the code goes forward.  Deborah Nielson:  Are there controls for this town similar to other townships?  Mr. Burgis:  when applicants see this, they will have to slightly modify the ordinance to achieve, doesn’t feel it will be a problem.  It is consistent with other towns.  Mr. Burgis indicated the only thing that isn’t attached at this time is the illustration showing profile of way to interpret height.  That will be sent.  Upon receipt of complete ordinance, it can be forwarded to committee for introduction.  Motion made by:  Deborah Nielson, Seconded by: Marie Kull    Roll call vote: unanimous to forward the ordinance asking the ordinance be considered for introduction. 

Amendment to R27D Zone – Draft Ordinance Review  - Child Care Use &

Discussion re:  Consideration of an ‘Elder Care’ use as permitted use:  Mr. Burgis indicated this was the one adjustment made on prior draft, adding ‘elder care’ and this use would be permitted in only this zone at this time.  There are no other zones that would allow this activity at this time until it was further discussed and addressed.  Gary Lewis indicated he finds this ordinance meets the various discussions and input we offered and recommended it be forwarded to the Township Committee for adoption.  Seconded by: by:  Larry Hines

Deborah Nielson:  asked if footnote #24 is consistent with state statute – Mr. Burgis

Roll call vote: unanimous

John Rosellini:  entrance noted

Streetscape Ordinance – Discussion of Scheduling – Linda White indicates she needs to coordinate a subcommittee tour to review some of the issues Stan Omland, PE raised.  She will see if she can get a date from Stan Omland, PE for a morning tour.

Development of Ordinance Regulating placement of Detention Basins on individual lots –Stan Omland, PE – Linda White explained that this is an issue that we have addressed as part of our subdivision reviews but have no ordinance that provides for the township to require individual lots for a detention basin.

Stan Omland, PE indicated that without this ordinance these structures could be put on a lot rendering the lot with no useable area.  We have where we can require these structures to be put on a separate tax lots.  He indicated we can say we want them to be installed on a conforming lot but that subject he feels is open to this board‘s discussion.  He feels we need to develop this wording in our ordinance.  Gary Lewis:  don’t feel requiring a conforming lot is necessary for every lot, and we should look at this, but in general finds the concept acceptable, just not sure of a conforming lot requirement. 

Stan Omland, PE:  one of the items talked we talked about is not that we necessarily have a conforming lot but we should have frontages on an improved street to make sure that they can be accessed for maintenance by township.  We haven’t made them all of these lots we created this requirement as conforming.  John Rosellini:  what about the basin size?  Wouldn’t the basin size dictate size of lot, and wouldn’t we want to cut down on some sizes of the lots especially if they are now township responsibility? 

Stan Omland, PE: he asked that the Planning Board give some direction on this issue, that being whether or not detention lots should be a conforming lot requirement and/or should the lot be modified by site/design requirements? 

The cost of the project wouldn’t exceed $1,000 for Stan Omland, PE’s services, but he would have to have Mr. Oostdyk design and work with him on this ordinance.  John Rosellini:  don’t want to see non-conforming lot with a postage stamp lot.  Deborah Nielson:  would want to see acreage but not necessarily all of the street frontage requirements, just make sure there is access room.  Gary Lewis: don’t necessary need 3 acres for a small 3 lot subdivision.  Deborah Nielson:  not problem so much with acreage, but more directed towards bulk in area.  John Rosellini:  what is left in town to develop?  Stan Omland, PE if the Planning Board concerns are that we will get undersized basins if we require individual lots, this will not happen since this is an engineering design requirement as to design of sign.  It is purely policy.  If it is a large lot zone, you may not need a large lot detention basin.  This is not the purpose to restrict lots but rather to have a lot dedicated to provide for this basin.  Would prefer to see a useable lot vs encumbering a lot with this design factor of subdivisions.  He indicated he would start drafting ordinance, and will further discussion and options to Planning Board at future meeting when this is available.  He will stay under the $1,000 ceiling.  Gary Lewis:  discussed maintenance of lot and whether or not they would have to maintain the larger lot and how this would be accomplished.  Deborah Nielson:  doing this will limit development.  Stan Omland, PE:  will work with township attorney and will leave some of the issues open ended for future discussions.  Motion to authorize Stan Omland, PE at costs not to exceed $1,000 to develop with township attorney the detention ordinance draft.  Motion made by:  John Rosellini

Seconded by: Deborah Nielson   Roll call vote: unanimous

Discussion re:  Rezoning – Avila - GI Auto site: Requested to be reschedule to 5-24-07

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  will be working on this in accordance with request from Linda White.  Since he will be away on vacation for the May 10th agenda, the Planning Board asked this be put on the May 24th agenda.  Mrs. White will notify Boswell Engineering that his request for continued hearings at the May 24th meeting will be postponed to a June 28th meeting.  The Planning Board asked that this draft report with other recommended uses for this site be forwarded to them in advance to allow them opportunity to review recommendations that may be offered. 

Housing Element – Changes to eliminate V& L site from Housing Element of Master Plan –Mrs. White indicated she requested Mr. Burgis to prepare amended master plan element to eliminate the V&L site and would notice for the June 14th Planning Board meeting.

Discussion re:  paver reduction for sidewalks, pool patio’s

Linda White summarized.  John Rosellini:  how did we come up with 20%.  History of board was that pavers should have credit was to get 20% on driveway coverage.  Linda White explained decks are impervious as well as building lot coverage area calculations, but that second story decks are building lot coverage not part of impervious.  Gary Lewis:  couldn’t understand the difference whether it is front or rear, and logic would not seem reasonable not to grant some credit for this.  Understands that we also thought that the aesthetics of pavers was a plus in the new home designs, per Linda White. 

John Rosellini:  explained how this evolved with rear yard coverage.  Planning Board didn’t want to open up floodgates and concerns raised about removal of green space.  Gary Lewis:  don’t think it is as much as you would think if you look at measurements.  Deborah Nielson:  no problem with 20% across board.  Stan Omland, PE:  no question there is a benefit of pavers.  Not certain 20% is the number but we get bonus here.  You have to worry about sub pave that isn’t concrete.  It is clear that the new homes are putting in pavers all over, that you now see very little concrete and/or asphalt.  If you want to facilitate this, give them these reductions to assist in creating an incentive.  Feels there are two benefits with this concept:  you limit development of lot and you keep drainage to a minimum.  If your focus is ‘extent of development’, then pavement is same but if your focus is on drainage, then pavers are a real thing and ‘bonus’ them.  20% is generous.  Current ordinance doesn’t have prohibition of concrete underlay with pavers, but this ordinance, if we go forward, should be specific to indicate that if you use concrete/solid bed, then you do not get the 20% credit.   Tony Speciale:  walkways in rear yards are also considered all impervious.  Tony Speciale thought 50% would be a good percentage in rear. 

John Visco:  based on feelings voiced, feel we should give 20% across the board on the lot for any use of pavers in design parameter, except that we should make sure code clearly reflects Mr. Omland’s recommendation that we prevent concrete as base eliminating this as a ‘credit’ since it would not longer allow seepage back into lands.  Board authorized Mr. Burgis to develop this ordinance amendment allowing for a 20% credit for use of pavers on properties as long as there is no solid cement as base.  Motion made by:  Gary Lewis:

Seconded by: Deborah Nielson

Roll call vote: unanimous

Scheduling Re:  Towaco Center – Scheduled for June 14, 2007 – 6:30PM

Should have draft before hand.  Want things in advance.  Need answers.  State wants the Master Plan document for Aug. 07.  Planning Board is only board to go forward with this.

State calls for upgrading river, stream protection – input from Stan Omland, PE – Mr. Omland distributed a map based on the Daily Record article that was in yesterday’s newspaper indicating on said map the C1 category waters along with the 300’ buffers.  He noted that there was the Rockaway River along the west, as well as Crooked Brook and Hatfield Creek.  These 3 water bodies are shown on this map and he scaled in the 300’ that is the shaded area that if this rule goes thru will be protected under stringent rules imposed by the State of NJ.  He indicated over 900 miles of lands will be affected.  Freeholder has opposed noting their concerns about the Highlands buffers and the additional requirements that will be 300’.  He reminded the Planning Board about our concerns in the Highlands Protection area that we provided opposing commentary.  This will have an impact on township if they have any development in this area, and if a township owns property in this area, they are also affected, noting our police and public works building would be affected since the 300’ buffer is severely regulated.  It is there to provide enhanced treatment of water, fish, and water protection.  It is now a buffer of 25’ and it is being increased to 50’ and this third set of increases now goes to 300’.  This is scheduled for public discussions period, which will close July 20th, and this may be adopted in fall.  This is controversial and the County has taken a strong position and concerns raised that it appears Trenton is taking over Morris county.  Does these waters really warrant a C1 protection? 

Deborah Nielson:  if you have a home within these areas on River road/Hatfield creek within protected 300’, what does this mean to existing homes.  Stan Omland, PE:  Existing can enjoy existing condition of property, but beyond that, if you are in the inner 300’ you cannot expand home at all.  If in outer area, you have to go thru a special consultant and have certain determinations made. 

Deborah Nielson:  can we get a synopsis in writing from Stan Omland, PE so we can write legislators and take a strong position opposing this.  We should consider enjoining with other towns and have a group regional letter go in to oppose this.  It is encumbered upon us to see these homeowners are not severely affected.  Rockaway River is C1 and all tributaries within 1 mile and we should have a strong municipal and regional objection of taking away home rule. 

Stan Omland, PE:  Rockaway River crosses many towns:  your singular opposition to this rulemaking doesn’t have same affect.  Suggest that there be discussion with neighboring communities since this would be good:  Parsippany is one that should be contacted and you should go forward as a regional group.  He clarified that if our community wants to put sidewalks in River Road, since Rockaway River abuts, Montville wouldn’t be allowed to do this?  Deborah Nielson:  are we also talking road improvements.  Does that mean storm inlets, and discharges into swales, etc?  Stan Omland, PE:  River Road may be affected without the township providing those stringent studies to support differently.  The community would be required to provide mitigation somewhere in town. 

Deborah Nielson:  what if we wanted to widen a shoulder for bike path.  Stan Omland, PE:  it will be difficult.  Not only are you subject to stream encroachment; you will also under this proposal be required to apply every other standard.  New stormwater rules also require water quality to address this, but this proposal now puts in C1 inhibitors.  They must be upside of 150’ line.  These rules are created but not understood by state lawmakers.  They are not engineers.  They are rule makers.  It is a difficult situation.

It was decided that the Planning Board should send this important topic to the Township Committee and ask them to spearhead and meet with the neighboring communities.  Motion made by:  John Rosellini, Seconded by: Tony Speciale.  Deborah Nielson:  feels that Stan Omland, PE should prepare a summary letter highlighting the concerns voiced this evening to them so that they understand exactly what we are being faced with and the need for us to expedite this at the Township Committee level.  Stan Omland, PE:  he feels the state has to be balanced in their approach.  It obvious we also want to protect all streams, that we want more forest and fish, and this rule has the clear objective of providing water quality, better lifestyles but at what affect to our existing homeowner and tax payer and our ratable base.  The cost for this narrative will not exceed $300.  Motion to authorize expenditure of funds for this narrative to be presented to Township Committee made by Deborah Nielson, Seconded by: John Rosellini

Roll call vote: unanimous




PMS/C07-03 WINEBOW, Inc. – First Industrial tenancy – 20 Hook Mountain Road, Units 101 A&B – Preliminary & Final Site Plan/Variance - wine imports/warehousing/distribution – 24 hour operation; 78 employees – Office use of 13,666 sf and warehousing of 183,256 sf. – Eligible:  Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Leigh Witty, Art Daughtry, Marie Kull

Rescheduled to May 10th agenda due to last minute change requested from applicant.

John Rosellini  - asked if Planning Board noticed the temporary loading area constructed on R. 80 side, noting you couldn’t tell they are there.

PSPP/F98-13-06-17 – RAIA - 5 Changebridge Rd. - B: 59.02, L: 27 – amended site plan w/ variance signage – Approved 3-8-07 Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Gary Lewis, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale, Leigh Witty; John Rosellini, Russ Lipari

Motion made by: John Rosellini

Seconded by: Tony Speciale 

Roll call vote: unanimous

PMSP02-15-06-02 –WAUGHAW MOUNTAIN ESTATES III -Amended Preliminary  - Block: 24, L: 3.02 - Waughaw Road – preliminary subdivision - Eligible: Mr. Karkowsky, Ms. Kull, Mr. Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Daughtry, Anthony Speciale (alt#1), Mr. Witty (alt#2)    

Motion made by: Tony Speciale 

Seconded by: Gary Lewis

Roll call vote:  Unanimous

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    Approved 3-8-07 – Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull, Art Daughtry

Motion made by: Gary Lewis

Seconded by: Larry Hines 

Roll call vote: unanimous

PMSP/F04-14-06-16 – TORCH, Joseph - B: 39.06, L: 99.03 – Abbott Rd –pre/final major subdivision – 5 lot major subdivision – Eligible:  Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, John Visco, Larry Hines, Leigh Witty; Tony Speciale, Art Daughtry, Gary Lewis, Russ Lipari

Motion made by: Tony Speciale 

Seconded by: Marie Kull

Roll call vote: unanimous

PMSP/F03-07-04-07 MOORE REALTY – 70 River Rd. – B: 76, L: 12 –

Request for 1-year extension of approvals to March 9, 2008 –Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale, Leigh Witty; John Rosellini, Russ Lipari  

Motion made by: John Rosellini

Seconded by: Larry Hines 

Roll call vote: Unanimous

PGDP06-27 MAROTTA CONTROLS, Inc. – Rezoning Resolution recommending rezoning of Marotta Controls, Inc. properties known as:  B: 1, L: 29 recommending change from Industrial to Residential zoning Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale, Leigh Witty; John Rosellini, Russ Lipari

Motion made by: Tony Speciale 

Seconded by: John Rosellini 

Roll call vote:             unanimous      





Minutes of 2-22-07 – Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale, Leigh Witty; John Rosellini, Russ Lipari

Motion made by: John Rosellini

Seconded by: Larry Hines 

Roll call vote:             unanimous


Omland Engineering – O/E for: $1,000; Trust for: $510; $360; $90; $330; $600; $750; $150; $60; $1,140; $270; $210; $180; $115; $57.50; $75; $810; $330; $240; $150; $330; $120; $240; $300; $60

Michael Carroll. Esq – Litigation for: $31.25; $210; $93.75; $31.25; $31.25; Trust for: $230; $330; $30; $30; $180; $30; $750; $60; $30; $30; $60; $60; $240; $30; $360; $30; $60; $30; $150; $30; $120; $480

Burgis Associates –O/E for: $570; $597.50; Trust for: $560; $195; $390; $270; $90; $400; $525; $570; $240; $620; $570; $330; $350; $180; $30; $240; $150; $865; $30; $450; $425

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $75

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $250

Motion made by: John Rosellini

Seconded by: Larry Hines 

Roll call vote: unanimous



Board professionals sworn by Carl Nelson, Esq.


PMN06-04 – BECK – 15 Glenview Road – B: 31 L: 13 – Minor Subdivision & Associated Variances - Carried from 10-26-06 & 3/22/07 – Roll call vote: Roll call vote: Deborah Nielson, Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale, Leigh Witty; John Rosellini, Russ Lipari, Marie Kull, John Visco                                                                                                                                      ACT BY:  4/27/07

Township engineer did present a report based on resident’s complaints.  Copies were given to planning board members and applicant. 

Tom Boorady, PE –professional sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq. previously

Present:  John Sweeney, Esq.

Mr. Borady indicated:  Revised drawings displayed to reflect conservation easement this evening.  Exhibit As A1 – marked as conservation easement. Sheet 3 of 6 – dated April 25, 2007 and is same alternate plan at last meeting with conservation easement. – Dated 4-26-07

Easement will be 18,000 sq. ft. goes depth of property, along Glenview about 210 and back about 46 ½ and would remain wooded and dedicated as conservation easement never to be touched. 

Letter from Township Engineer read into record dated Thursday April 26, 2007 verbatim.  Mr. Borady indicated:  Noted the property is not tributary except for Ms. Bialek’s lot.

Improvements constructed do not increase rate of overland flow and confident Stan Omland, PE will make sure this is in conformance. 

Noted that the office has had contact with Ms. Biale at 28 Old Jacksonville:  malfunctioning drain and subsurface seeping from hill.  Noted that a portion of applicant’s property drains this way.  Applicant’s engineer should address this.  Noted that Stan Omland, PE, also will review.

Mr. Danzi concerns reviewed as to drainage on Old Jacksonville, engineering and public works will inspect but applicant’s engineer must support flow to this road.  Only complaints on record are regarding pavement deterioration. 

Answers from Mr. Borady:

As to Ms. Biale:  he agrees to this statement. 

As to improvements not increasing overland drainage, confident Stan Omland, PE will follow this issue.  This was reviewed and there are 3,000 gal. storage from driveway/roof on proposed dwelling.  All will be directed to seepage pits and will retain water.  Drainage calculations will be supplied to both engineers to support this.

As to Ms. Biale on water and issues raised:  Engineer indicated all impervious will be directed to seepage pits and are designed to discharge water into subsurface in about 3 days and percs into groundwater and doesn’t feel there will be an affect.  It will not affect it.  Seepage pits are 100’ away and are sufficient time for water to perc in before elevation of basement. 

#4 as to drainage on Old Jacksonville, not adding to any problems on this road.  Water will be piped into ground, and will into be worsened and may be improved.  Would say that we are not increasing this problem. 

Tract 2

John Rosellini:  asked if Mr. Omland was in agreement with this testimony.  Stan Omland, PE will respond at finish of applicant’s case.  Mr. Borady:  now putting this water into ground, taking it and directing it to where it wants to go.

Stan Omland, PE:  drainage:  test pits will be done. What if rock is encountered?  Mr. Borady: Can design infiltrator more shallow and install them in fill.  Stan Omland, PE:  science and tech involved if all conditions align themselves, and one is that if there was a high rock existence, it won’t infiltrate and will hit rock and then hit hillsides below.  Solution is:  instead of doing dry well, is to use infiltrators or long lineal chambers into a shallow disposal which lets water perc down, and if it breaks out, it goes in a sheet flow.  This is more predictable on high rock.  Concerned on depth of lot.  Would be more comfortable if there was a depth of rock involved per Stan Omland, PE 

Second concern:  on calculations of April 6th, designed for rainfall, but with past storm, the water quality storm is not what we designed detention for.  Mr. Borady:  the 1 ¼ is in two hours, and storm was 8” in two days.  24-hour rainfall is different.  Stan Omland, PE: Without test holes, do you have infiltration.  Applicant asked if this could be made a contingency on test holes.  Would install septic system, would go down to rock.  Stan Omland, PE:  not sure if there is or what type of rock there is.  Test pits would be installed.  Public is out, and town is concerned and what is impact of stormwater management.  Without having soils, not sure without a doubt you can mitigate this.  Right now you are putting in ground, the benefit may be less water if the system as proposed works.  Not a problem, but want evidence to prove soils are able to support it.  Planning Board may want this comfort level.  

Deborah Nielson: feel test holes are central.  Have some sympathy since this is not a new application and these issues should have been addressed prior to this meeting.  Since it is a sensitive issue, we should know the answer.  Think it is necessary to have accurate data.

Gary Lewis: if we said to the board’s engineer that you are comfortable that the drainage approach is ok, and then find that based on test boring s it isn’t ok, then he has to come back to the Planning Board anyway.  It’s the same net affect.  John Rosellini:  want test holes.  Assume it should be done. 

Marie Kull:  have we addressed this with every property?  I agree we should have all testing prior to.  Stan Omland, PE:  we have not done this with every application, but when there are drainage issues, it is clearly an approach to remedying this.  We are listening to the public, and interests are heightened.  Where minor subdivision, not typical to require, but on septic, it is required.  Deborah Nielson: there are no improvements proposed to Jacksonville Road. Deborah Nielson asked Linda White to contact Mr. Barile the cost improvements Old Jacksonville Road.

Mr. Feeny:  town has a sewer and water line, which is 14’ below ground, and Mr. Beck was there, and there were no rocks.  Would agree to come back if there were rock.  Stan Omland, PE:  Rock is a continuous layer of rock.  Mr. Beck indicated there was none. 

Larry Hines:  agree with Gary’s comments?  Gary indicated if drainage design is acceptable subject to Planning Board engineer ok, then this can be done without a revisit to the board.  All we would be doing is rubberstamping Stan Omland, PE’s approval, and if this issue is not satisfactory, it should come back.  Marie Kull:  agree with Mr. Hines and Mr. Lewis

John Rosellini:  do test pits before consideration not as a condition of Stan Omland, PE. 

Tony Speciale:  do a test and would have to provide tests.  Stan Omland, PE:  if they found anything in the storm profile that would not convince him it would work and that there would be no impacts, then it would come back to the Planning Board.  Leigh Witty and John Visco agreed that it belongs with Planning Board engineer.  Linda White indicated that if you approved it like this, and the condition couldn’t be satisfied, applicant would have to provide new notice and reappear to the board to keep residents apprised.

Stan Omland, PE:  applicant must understand things that he will be looking at:  separation of rocks/slopes/receipt of water/including clay that may be a problem/may need more corrugated pipes/may have to move up near house to create barrier, criteria is subjective subject to results provided.  If results are lacking, cannot be specific in requirements, this is an on-going analysis. 

Class B roadway design.  Not subject to improvements by township.  Applicant agreed he would eliminate the corner in the ROW encroachment. 

Discussion continued on the requirement of moving the driveway/parking area to at least 5’ offset by grading requirements in ordinance as to driveway, was to eliminate impervious, and would leave space between lot line and fire hydrant and can move to the south and pave more into Glenview road, since it would add more.  It is a variance.  Will relocate proposed property line to meet 5’.  There is an existing lines and wanted to keep on remainder lot and will move it to achieve 5’.  Will adjust.

Is there a setback requirement from the property line and will need to pull this in to eliminate the 5’ off row of street.  Is applicant aware that this notch that he will take out of larger parking field but next question, will you offset 5’ off property line as per code?  Do you have to get in and out of garage?  Can modify house footprint and will be adjusted.  No variances will be required of the footprint and/or modifies.  Original plat plan must reflect the approval document this way.

Applicant will comply with all agency approval documents.

John Rosellini:  are you asking for an approval.  Gary Lewis:  put a lot line is not an engineering issue.  Submit a subdivision plan that meets where they can locate.

Can ask for a variance on locational information, and wants to put planner on record.  Gary Lewis:  if you say move a lot line, then shows this. 

Asking board for a variance for existing lots as shown.

Opened to public on engineering issues only.  David Hansen, PE Officer with Surbanan Consulting and represents Izzo’s.  - sworn

Reviewed last plan that didn’t have conservation line.  First thing: drywells: roof leaders – no calculations.  Think this information has to be in, need test pits and designed to meet this.  Very low permeability.  Went thru some drainage calculations, there is no guaranteed for back-to-back storms.  Secondly, testimony given down stream affected is neighbor on other side on Glenview.  Izzo live downstream and based on topo, any overflow is going to end up.

Believe drywells can be put somewhere else on lot.  Stan Omland, PE:  suggested one of the things is to make sure there is sufficient soil, separate of rock and they may be uphill and may only impact this proposed resident.  Applicant will be willing to look at this.

Regard to variances requested, with taking out encroachment of the driveway and shifting house off street, yellow area are areas of 20% of less, and are in excess of 20% and more in excess of 50%, shifting house to further back, pushes house into steeper section of house and will push up length of driveway, retaining walls, and causing problems in another situation.

Presented slope analysis, but applicant’s engineer cannot answer this question on shifting and intruding into lot.  Stan Omland, PE:  applicant’s expert indicates that in doing driveway, will you keep same footprint away from paper street and push house closer?  The closer to street, the less impact there is to Izzo’s?  If you are moving away, you are putting more in line with Izzo impact, now you talk about possibility of modifying footprint?  Is footprint shrinking?  Mr. Applicant’s engineer, agree with Mr. Barile and topo and on survey topo, any water coming from this property flows towards Glenview Road not towards this.  Have no response that water is going to Izzo’s.  Stan Omland, PE:  you mention that you would modify house and driveway, will footprint shrink or will it have same lineal direction?  Applicant:  may not have to shift since there is 25’ available.  Corner is out to 30’.  25’ is enough to turn around.  Notch off, and won’t have a variance and won’t shift building away from Glenview Road.  Asking for both variances. Izzo owns lot 14 at bottom of hill.  Topo and contour lines are parallel to this property line, so any property falls on this slope is tributary.  Can’t see how Glenview is tributary? 

If vacated no frontage.  Applicant complies with height and story relation.  Height of house at 30’ and rear at 40’:  Question: on rear of grading, what of walk out basement under deck? Showing a 3:1 slope, and if you need to flatten out for use, this will be added to drainage situation.  No patio below, just a deck shown.  Walk out basement. 

More revisions will be needed. 

Mr. Izzo:  it is a narrative.

Mr. Nelson:  ask questions of witness, explained, and then at the end, read a statement.  Planning Board allowed Mr. Izzo to read his letter into record: 

Statement read.  Voiced concerns on house being built.  He gave his background noting his concerns for people.  Don’t want a large hill built and not cause a tragedy to what is built to mother nature.  1999 was a large storm.  Living near this drive, sump pump loses $40,000 from this storm; lost belongings, and possessions, Hurricane Floyd.  Not immune to a large hurricane.  Concern about retaining walls washing down hills, mentioning CA homes.   Kinnelon homes are built on hill, with none underneath that could be harmed.  These are preventable.  Scared about this proposal since don’t want to see home scattered on his property or immediate neighbors.  Have a water problem on this street.  Tanks collecting water will be established and will these tanks hold this water?  Want definite locations defined on this property, including potential for tanks.  Have board members visited this site.  Providing photos from Izzo property and immediate property driveway to reflect steepness of hill.  Prime statements represent relative to issue at hand.  How would you feel if house was built above you? 

Mr. Izzo sworn by Mr. Nelson and agreed what he testified was true.  Present photos at a later date, and write on back of pictures what they are and number them.

Tract 3

Mia Petron, PP professionals sworn by Carl Nelson, Esq.

Credentials given

Property description:  Lincoln Park border in CWR district.  Site is improved with Single Family.  17 properties on Glenview; northern portion is developed Single family.  This would be larger lot in areas.

C2 variances promote land use law; positive criteria:  minimum lot area, l3.01, this lot is less than 1700 sq. ft. shy of ordinance which is diminious; looking at lot areas in other areas are consistent with development area; other areas in this area are less in size along Glenview Road.  This is more consistent with land use.  Two homes on lot are consistent with neighborhood.  Undersized lots are consistent with neighborhood.  This is sound planning to bring lot dimensions closer to conformity. 

Setback variances discussed.  Variances are to shift to reduce amount of disturbance to slope to reduce impact in this area.  2/3 of dwelling complies with 25%sideyards, but the porch is an added feature; minimum building area at 5,000 sq. ft. has to be outside steep slope.  There are about two areas that meet criteria (about 6,000 sq. ft.).  In this case, placement is consistent with existing development pattern. 

Driveway variance is predicated on sight and existing cul de sac.  Existing driveway and proposed are 30’ from proposed 13.01 so there is adequate separation.  In looking at Master Plan, objectives:  preserve character and NRI of township and master plan goals and subdivision is consistent with this neighborhood.  Also proposing 18.,000 in keeping with environmental and no additional trees will be removed.

Negative:  impact on public good and zone plan.  This application will not be a impact to common good, creates two lots in subdivided lots larger than surrounding area, and not unreasonable for lots of this size and no trees will be removed and meets coverage calculations.  No substantial impact to zone theme as residential and preserving natural resource by decreasing impact to steep area.  Promotes master plan.  Specific purpose of master plan is to promote population density to contribute to neighborhood and environment.  These are conforming lots and promote this uniformity of land arrangement at this location and conservation easement protects this area.

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  spoke of benefits for public, what is public benefit from this?  The public benefit is to develop a development pattern consistent to this neighborhood to protect uniformity.  The fact is a larger lot would be inconsistent with public benefit.  Looking at potential development can have large home on large lot and it is inconsistent.

Steep slopes:  25%, ordinance says no intrusion unless incidental to roadway/driveway/utility connection or other similar improvement, applicant must demonstrate disturbance in order to fulfill these and there is no practical alternative to this.  Intruding about 18,000 sq. ft. in 25% steeper area, how do you compare this?  Percentage of slopes is 20%, in looking at the intent of steep slopes is to preserve, soil erosion, drainage purposes, and looking at this neighborhood, this is a fully developed area.  See no likelihood of extending down to Jacksonville Road; benefit is looking at it collectively.  If it this portion is only allowed for driveway, asked Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP?  She feels it does.

Deborah Nielson:  variances for lot area and setback?  Has applicant made effort to vacate this road?  Applicant did not.  If there were a vacation, acreage on this road would essentially disappear.  Was there any attempt to purchase additional lands?  Did not attempt to acquire.

Open to public

Dave Hansen:  did a survey of houses along Glenview?  How many had this topo?  Did not survey.  Along Glenview, appears level.  Could it be that lot is twice as big since lot is 2x as big as steep slope.  Have no response to this.  With response to minor subdivision line, where slope breaks and goes to flatter slope, could this be why it is larger since when this subdivision was planned out and it was two lots at that time.

John Rosellini:  engineer is coming back with revised drawings and test pits will be given.  Suggest that engineer calls to resolve before the next meeting. 

Motion to carry made by Larry Hines, Seconded by: John Rosellini

Application Carried to: May 24th with notice preserved.  Extended time to May 25th.   .


Gary Lewis:  to expedite next hearing:  issue at last hearing has to do with proposed height of the structure, and some minor alterations can be made to meet height requirements in the zoning ordinance.  Look at the new ordinance to make sure.

Get copy to applicant’s engineer.  Have been occasions to witness test holes.  Stan Omland, PE:  think that when certifying the results, will be comfortable.  Will talk before holes are done.  Decision is up to Stan Omland, PE.  Will invite.  Resolution issue on possibility of relocation of these pits, if so, per John Rosellini, these will be focused.  All data would be shown on final plat and would be consistent.  No architectural plans to review.  When coming in with building permit, must recognize this.  Footprint on this plan, is it subject to future changes?  Gary Lewis:  footprint on plan is lowest level is a story.  Check this out now.  Steep slopes amendments.


PSPP/FC06-25 Sharpe Health & Fitness – Indian Ln. – B: 32, L: 24.1 – Development of a 10,500 sq. ft. health and fitness center on a 2.3 acre site located on cul-de-sac at end of Indian Lane East located in Industrial zone within the Critical Water Resources Overlay District; variances for a front-yard setback of 50’ where 75’ is permitted; a building mounted sign variance for 19’5’ where 5’ is permitted; maximum impervious coverage of 57.3% where 55% permitted – Notice Acceptable            ACT BY: 6-11-07

Application Carried to: May 10th in a motion made by Deborah Nielson

Seconded by: Larry Hines 

Roll call vote: unanimous



Reminder offered:  Tree City/Arbor Day Celebration @ 9AM tomorrow morning.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Linda White

Absent with explanation

Absent with explanation

Absent with explanation

Certified to missed meeting of 3-8-07

Certified to missed meeting of 3-8-07


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack