|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge
Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF APRIL 26,
2007
ROLL CALL
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
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Carried Hearings Announced: PSPP/FC06-25 Sharpe Health &
Fitness – Indian Ln. – B: 32, L: 24.1 – Development – Carried to: May 10, 2007
COMMITTEE REPORTS
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.
PLANNING BUSINESS
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
WAIVERS
None
RESOLUTIONS
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
CORRESPONDENCE
None
MINUTES
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
INVOICES
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
LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS
None
Board professionals sworn by Carl Nelson, Esq.
OLD BUSINESS
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. .
Unanimous
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.
NEW BUSINESS
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
CONCEPTS
None
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
Certified to
missed meeting of 3-8-07
Certified to
missed meeting of 3-8-07
|
