PB Minutes 5-24-07 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Mr. Rosellini - absent                         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 – present

Mr. Witty (alt#2) – present

Also present:

Michael Carroll, Esq.

Stan Omland, PE

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP






Ladis Karkowsky expressed concerns on the amount of temporary signs displayed all ove the township.  Mrs. White summarized that she has found that to be a problem herself and has informed Anthony Petrillo that the code regulating temporary signs must be enforced as it is drafted, and that there should be no expanding beyond the number and/or time period permitted by the code.  She also indicated she has said that the signs can only be located on a ROW of municipal lands and/or have written permission if the request is to place within interior of lots, and that no more than one ‘temporary’ sign be permitted in one location at one time.  Ms. White explained this was put in a memo today to the assistant zoning officer. 




Ordinance Permitting Aged Restricting Housing - Old Bloomfield Avenue – B: 160, L: 4 – Hook Mountain Associates

Planning Board members reviewed the proposed ordinance drafted by Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP dated May 21st copied below that was drafted in accordance with a request from Hook Mountain Associates, Block 160 Lot 4: Bloomfield Ave. & Hook Mountain Rd. under Planning Board number: PGDP 06-22

Mr. Burgis report indicates…The planning board recently requested that we prepare a draft ordinance to permit adult community housing as a conditional use in the OB-1 Office Building District.  The following is offered for consideration.

Ordinance Amending Chapter 16 of the Revised General Ordinances of the Township of Montville to permit Adult Community Housing in the OB-1 Zone

Township of Montville

Morris County, New Jersey

WHEREAS the Township of Montville acknowledges that the township’s population has experienced a significant increase in its aging population, and

WHEREAS, the available census data indicates that, between the years 1990 and 2000, the percentage of the township’s population that is minimally age fifty-five increased by fifty-two percent (52%), from 3,102 residents to 4,721 residents, and

WHEREAS the Township of Montville recognizes that the State of New Jersey has stated a legislative intent indicating that the provision of senior citizen housing is to be encouraged in light of the above, and

WHEREAS, one of the explicit purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law is to encourage senior citizen housing.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Township of Montville hereby amends Chapter 16 of the Revised General Ordinances of the Township of Montville to permit adult community housing as a conditional use in the OB-1 Zone as follows:

Amend Section 16.44.010 Schedule C Permitted Uses as follows: Identify Adult Community Housing as a permitted conditional use in the OB-1 Zone by the addition of “Adult Community Housing (Footnote 48)” to the list of Conditional Uses and the placement of an “X (Footnote 49)” in the Adult Community Housing category under the column entitled OB-1,-2,-3.

Amend Section 16.44.010 Schedule C Permitted Uses as follows:  Add a Footnote #48 to Schedule C stating “See Section 16.72.090.”

Amend Section 16.44.010 Schedule C Permitted Uses as follows:  Add a Footnote #49 to Schedule C stating “Permitted in the OB-1 Zone only.”

Amend Chapter 16.72 Conditional Uses by adding Section 16.72.090 Adult Community Housing in OB-1 office building district, which shall read as follows:

Adult Community Housing in OB-1 office building district.

For Adult Community Housing in the OB-1 Office Building District, the following requirements shall be met:

Occupancy limitations.  Occupancy shall be as regulated in Section 16.60.020A.

Area and density requirements.

Lot area.  There shall be a minimum lot area of three (3) acres.

Route 80 frontage.  There shall be a minimum of 500 feet of frontage along Route 80.

Density.  There shall be no more than nine (9) dwelling units per acre nor more than fifteen (15) habitable rooms (other than a living room, dining room or kitchen) per acre.

Building coverage.  The total ground floor area of all buildings shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the lot area.

Setback requirements.  There shall be a minimum front and rear yard setback of 50 feet each, and minimum side yard setbacks of 40 feet.

Building requirements.

Height.  No building shall exceed a height of two and one-half (2 ½) stories or thirty-five (35) feet, whichever is the lesser.

Building plans and elevations shall show a variation in design to be achieved by types of roof, heights of eaves and peaks, building materials and architectural treatment of the building façade.

Interior walls separating dwelling units shall be fire walls, constructed in accordance with provisions of the Township Building Code.

Dwelling unit requirements.  Dwelling units shall be as regulated in Section 16.60.020F.

Accessory uses and buildings.

Uses.  Garages, clubhouses, swimming pools and other recreational facilities shall be permitted accessory uses.

Setbacks.  Accessory uses may be built into the principal building or separately constructed as hereinafter provided.  If separately constructed, accessory buildings shall be located at least thirty (30) feet from any other structure or building and shall meet the minimum yard requirements of the principal building.

Height.  No accessory building shall exceed a height of fourteen (14) feet.

Design.  Architectural design and materials used in the construction of accessory buildings shall conform to those used in the construction of principal buildings.

Off-street parking.  Off-street parking shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 16.68 and Section 16.28.030.

Open space.  Exclusive of internal roadways and parking areas, there shall be provided a minimum of forty percent (40%) of the entire tract for common open space.

I.            Miscellaneous.  Miscellaneous requirements shall be as regulated in Section 16.60.020J.

If any section or provision of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid in any Court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall not affect the other sections of provisions of this Ordinance, except insofar as the section or provision so declared invalid shall be inseparable from the remainder of any portion thereof.

All ordinances or parts of ordinances, which are inconsistent herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

This Ordinance shall take effect immediately after final passage and publication in the manner provided by law.

Planning Board discussions on this draft ordinance continued with Mr. Burgis summarizing the housing cap is 9 units per acre.  Mr. Schepis:  asked that the ordinance provide an aged restricted housing definition.  Discussion continued on impervious coverage and building coverage and minimum open space requirements proposed in code.  Mr. Burgis clarified there is no difference is what an open space requirement is, and clarified the ordinance defines adult housing.  Miscellaneous provision:  16.60 subparagraph I indicates there is a provision that only one main antenna is permitted on structure.  FCC allows dishes per Mr. Schepis, and feels this section should be clarified.  . 

Mr. Schepis:  also voiced concerns on conditional use requirements.  Would like to have some of these considered as design standards since any deviation would then require a Board of Adjustment action which he feels this was not intent of Planning Board.  Mr. Burgis indicated he is not concerned with the issues of antennae, and can identify this item as a standard and not a conditional use standard.  He stressed strongly, though, that any bulk regulations should all be conditional use requirements, but felt that he could provide an amendment to the ordinance to allow some of the other standards, such as parking sizes, etc. to be considered design standards and would so amendment. 

Gary Lewis:  paragraph d, section 3, term ‘fire wall’ under building code requires that this standard be a non-combustible wall, and feels this is strong for a barrier that separates dwelling units.  He feels these types of standards, such as interior walls should be stipulated to comply with and be subject to building code requirements.  Mr. Burgis will provide this amendment also. 

Deborah Nielson:  asked about the other OB1 zone, since there is one located at Changebridge and River Road which would be affected by this ordinance.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  agreed, but clarified that one of the conditions of this amendment is that the code requires 500 ft. lineal footage on Rt. 80 and stressed that this ordinance amendment does not rezone any other parcel to allow density at 9 units per acre.  Linda White: clarified that any development on a tract without this parameter would be subject to a Board of Adjustment review process.  Deborah Nielson:  voiced concerns that we are not looking to encourage density anywhere else in community.

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  feels he can support this position in a stronger “whereas clause’ to further ensure that this use only be allowed in this southern area in the OB1 zone.  Although we may want some age restricted housing in our community, we don’t want a domino affect, and we want it very clear that this ordinance was not drafted for any other site but this site.   

Gary Lewis:  wanted assurances that there is nothing else in ordinance that would prohibit emergency access, and that this code is structured to allow this to take place without problems in the future. 

Motion made by:  Gary Lewis to propose this ordinance with modifications suggested to the Township Committee for adoption.   Seconded by: Larry Hines 

Roll call vote: unanimous – Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull, Art Daughtry, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines   

Discussion:  GI Auto site –Board discussion re: alternate uses

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP summarized he is investigating other types of development potential on this site, indicating large box retail, aged restricted housing, upscale lifestyle type retail are uses that he is considering, noting he will have this report available for the June 14th Planning Board.  Ms. White reminded the Planning Board Mr. Boswell would be providing general notice to residents within 200’ since he is coming back with a retail development proposal for this site.

Prior to this meeting, Mr. Burgis will submit a formal report.  As to status of this analysis, he is currently examining a variety of different uses to see what the impact would be.  Some of the uses looked at include two forms of residential use, conventional multi-family and aged restricted uses, retail use of property, lifestyle and big box use and also self-storage on a portion of this property, as well as office and warehouse mix.  He is also creating a matrix to identify the impacts as to the variety of uses and how the site would be impacted by these uses from traffic, economics, public services, as well as how they would fit in with development pattern, the character of Rt. 46 corridor, what kind of coverage factors are involved as well as issues with stormwater regulations, concluding with his suggestion as to what his opinion would be as the most appropriate use of this site.  These are basic components of this report, noting he is also evaluating uses as to how to ‘regulate’ this uses.

Ladis Karkowsky:  why not a hotel?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  that is one of the uses.  Deborah Nielson:  elaborated that it would have to be a high-end type of hotel with banquet facilities, etc.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  also looking at multiple other uses for this site along with these, asking the Planning Board if there are any other uses they may have in mind that he should investigate.

Gary Lewis: voiced aged restricted housing concerns.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  he would consider a small area for aged restricted housing, but he has concerns about aged restricted development because in 12-15 years there may be problems in selling these units since he feels the next age generation may not be there to support it.  Concern is same as late 80’s and early 90’s when you saw a lot of plans with multi-family since they didn’t generate costs for plowing, etc., but now laws are changing on that, and he sees this happen in the future that we will have to deal with these concerns.

He also looked at assisted care living developments.  Concerns raised on whether or not we want large box uses being considered in this area.  Ladis Karkowsky:  likes the idea of a high-end hotel.

Deborah Nielson:  have concerns on multi-family housing as to impact to our schools that are at capacity.  This should be included in any analysis provided by Mr. Burgis.  She indicated she thinks Woodmont and Hilldale are at capacity.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  confirmed his office has contacted school.  He was directed per Ms. Nielson to also check with middle schools and high school.   Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  restaurants are also a large part of the retail component.  Deborah Nielson:  does the board want to exclude big boxes.  Township Committee hasn’t reviewed this, but wants assurances from Planning Board that this isn’t desirable, and perhaps we should poll the board.  Deborah Nielson:  would like to see more of a lifestyle type of retail use, not a BJ’s type of box retail use.  Ladis Karkowsky: agreeing in view of the upgrades to the various office buildings and structures in this area.  Board polled:  consensus was not interested in large box retail uses in this area. 

Ordinance Amendment:  paver reduction for sidewalks, pool patio’s – Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP – authorized @ 4-26-07 Planning Board meeting – Rescheduled to June 14, 2007 – not available at this time.

Sign Ordinance – Coordinate @ part of Towaco Study

Linda White indicated since there is extensive sign designs contained in the original master plan draft, that perhaps this sign ordinance can be reviewed as part of the Towaco Corridor Center study which is scheduled for June 14th.  We can then expand upon this to include the Rt. 46 and interior corridor sign requirements considered in draft sign ordinance.  Mr. Burgis will address the draft sign ordinance and offer recommendations accordingly. 

Master Plan hearings - for Housing Element to remove V&L site & for Towaco Center.  Reminder:  June 14th Workshop @ 6:30PM Towaco Center

Linda White indicated notice was provided for an early start of the Planning Board meeting at 6:30 to conduct a workshop meeting on Towaco Corridor on June 14th.    She intended to also provide general notice to all within Towaco and those on an interest list given to the township that the Planning Board would be discussing this subject this evening.  Mr. Burgis indicated he should have this available in advance of meeting for public and Planning Board members.  Mrs. White indicated due to the State pushing up their financial compliance date, this master plan has to be finalized sooner than August date originally agreed upon with State DCA/grants staff. It is hoped that this meeting will result in having a finalized  'draft' master plan document that can be used for the State grant program.  She indicating she is working out the financial end with invoicing and payment vouchers now.  The DCA does want these items by June.   If needed, we can delay the mailing to the residents until the June 28th Planning Board meeting at which time she would also notice for adoption of a master plan element.  The zoning ordinance would also have to be drafted at that time so that this issue can be brought to closure.  Linda White indicated she did meet with Stan Omland, PE and Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP on May 23rd reviewing the prior minutes and documents the Planning Board already discussed.   Mr. Omland reminded that he was to confer with County Engineer on Towaco Rt. 202 Main Road improvements/parking issues as part of this study. 

Height Ordinance  

Linda White summarized:  Although originally recommended for adoption by the Planning Board at their April 26th meeting, Ms. White indicated she received inquiries and concerns from Mr. Schepis relative to the Hook Mountain rezoning ordinance and compliance with height and also had inquiries on how, if at all, commercial/industrial sites would be able to be developed wanting assurances that they wouldn’t come in with ‘flat roofs’ to meet height ordinance amendments.  Accordingly, she asked Mr. Burgis to respond to these concerns and issues.  Mr. Burgis in response submitted his report dated May 21, 2007 on this subject, responded indicating: The planning board recently discussed our memorandum wherein we offered a recommendation for an adjustment to the township’s approach to measuring the height of buildings and accessory structures.  Based upon the board’s discussion, we offer the accompanying draft ordinance.

Ordinance No. ___

Township of Montville

Morris County, New Jersey

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

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

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville has concluded that the Land Development Ordinance provisions governing the height of buildings and accessory structures require modification to ensure that they established an appropriate scale of development for new construction or additions to existing buildings; and

WHEREAS the Township of Montville seeks to establish such controls regulating the height of buildings and accessory structures;

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

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

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

Amend Article II Definitions, Section 16.04.040 by adding a definition of Height of Structure to read as follows: the vertical distance measured from the average finished grade level, measured ten feet from the structure foundation, at twenty foot intervals around the building (and at all points opposite corners of the structure where the ten foot lines intersect), to the highest roof beams on a flat or shed roof, to the deck level on a mansard roof, and to the average distance between the eaves and ridge level for gable, hip and gambrel roofs.  If the structure wall is less than 40 feet in length, the measurement shall be taken at the mid-point of the wall.  Where a retaining wall bisects the ten-foot dimension, an additional measurement shall be taken using the average height between the top and bottom of the retaining wall.            Illustrations (2) reflecting how to interpret height (note the other is attached to ordinance). 

Mr. Burgis indicated that this ordinance doesn’t affect commercial/industrial buildings, which has a footnote indicating no elevation higher than 40’, and will not encourage ‘flat roof’ designs.  He elaborated on changes he made to prior draft as it relates to where to measure and how to control the cap of any maximum building and/or building wall.  In some instances, the numbers can go as high at 55’.  This ordinance provides a cap of 45’ measured to top of ridgeline.  This affirmatively addresses area of concern.  Some questioned in mandating flat roof for commercial buildings since definition still has a cap of 40’ and this does not change.  This ordinance adequately addresses concerns.  There should not be any concern.  Linda White indicated that illustrations are also attached to help guide.

Marie Kull:  what do you do in a steep slope with a 45’ height, and it is a ranch, how does this equate?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  under the current conditions, development on a steep slope usually has building walls.  This ordinance is drafted to minimize this level and putting a cap in the ordinance indicating no building wall shall exceed height regulation.  This is appropriate dimension since you can have 2 ½ stories.  It allows sufficient flexibility to design a building on this site.  It should result in a design that does not intrude in a neighborhood as to stories and heights.

Motion to Township Committee to adopt made by John Visco, Seconded by: Marie Kull

Roll call vote: unanimous Roll call vote:  Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull, Art Daughtry, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines   

Streetscape Ordinance

Mr. Omland indicated that if the Planning Board members looked at an executive summary and policy of things that need to be done.  Ask board to review the executive summary and policy points and would entertain a discussion on these items.  Look at the geographic coverage, theme of lighting, consistency of lighting, and costs incurred, along with utility costs incurred by township.  This must be thought of and discussed.  If we can’t coordinate a site tour, can do this at a work session to go thru these items.  Feel strongly there are good ideas but not certain how the Planning Board wants to do with policy.

Ladis Karkowsky:  ran into a problem with the lighting where we recommended a certain area to put the lighting and when it came down, it was impossible to put it in.  Applicant went thru expense of purchasing fixtures, and now can’t put the lighting up.  If they are willing to put the lighting in, have to give them guidance.  Stan Omland, PE:  this is new and remembers difficulty of location and made adjustments at the hearing, and know of nothing new at this site.  It is the designer that must make sure that that professional puts testimony in the record.  If there is a problem, agree we need to be sensitive, but with this, the very issue in memo is if you want to establish a consistent spacing, you may lose it because of overhead wires and/or DEP permits.  Have some ideas, and some ideas will be less than more.  If you have a lot with narrow spacing, problem, and you skip a lot, then you notice it more.  If you spread it out further, then there are less visible problems.  Mr. Omland’s memo was to be redistributed to Planning Board members.

Deborah Nielson:  as to this Montville Inn, this contractor can sell this fixture to another developer and/or another subdivider.  We should, though, develop a timeframe for the streetscape to get completed and then get it to the Township Committee.  We should get some dates for an early meeting in September and have it finalized by October.  Stan Omland, PE did develop a comprehensive policy report that the Planning Board was asked to review and offer comments on. 

Deborah Nielson:  Montville is putting monies aside to put in a new traffic light at Rt. 202 and Whitehall Road.  Streetscape lighting for traffic lights should also be upgraded.  We should be the lead and give direction to township.  Linda White:  indicated she would also hope that we would make sure we coordinate township with county and have County improvements mirrored to get black fixture vs galvanized for lighting stanchions as recommended by Deborah Nielson.  We need to make sure the County planning and engineering staffs are fully aware of what we are doing along the corridors in our community.   It is more a governmental imposed issue so it was felt that the Planning Board should write a letter to the Township Committee about the theme of our ideas for the streetscape and ask that they also work with making sure the county embodies new stylistic fixtures.  Motion made by:  Deborah Nielson, Seconded by: Gary Lewis 

Roll call vote unanimous: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull, Art Daughtry, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines   

While on subject of off-site improvements, Ms. White indicated there are some monies posted by other developers for certain road improvements/traffic light installation along Rt. 202 and questioned if the Township shouldn’t investigate use of those funds if still available for some of the traffic light and roadway/drainage improvements proposed in this area to offset costs incurred by township.  Board asked Ms. White to write a letter to Mr. Bastone indicating that these funds are on deposit for off-site improvements and give him the information on record.

Ms. White clarified that those monies mentioned were given to township for traffic improvements as a result of Jade and Hunting Hill approvals for traffic lights.

Art Daughtry:  summarized the recommendations and upgrades suggested in the County traffic Study report, noting the township has to pay 1/3 the total costs, which is why only the one area is being considered at this time for upgrades. 

Ordinance No. 2007-24 Amending Chapter 16 to permit childcare and elder care in R27D zone – Referred by Township Committee for Adoption 6-12-07

Linda White indicated that this ordinance was introduced by Township Committee and is scheduled for adoption by Township Committee on June 12th.  The Planning Board may recall the applicant requesting rezoning did provide General notice to residents within 200’ of requested site, but the Planning Board included the R27D site located near Kramer Road.  Accordingly, Linda White indicated she sent out a general notice letter to all residents just to let them know that this was referred back to Planning Board for final comments.  She reminded Planning Board that public notice is not required, and that the township clerk did provide a certified mailing to all residents within 200’ indicating they can speak at the Township Committee meeting on this ordinance adoption scheduled on June 12th.  The ordinance would permit childcare centers and elder centers in the R27D zone.  The following is ordinance introduced for consideration.

Ordinance No. 2007-24

Ordinance Amending Chapter 16 of the Revised General Ordinances of the Township of Montville to permit Child Care and Elder Care Centers in the R27D Zone

Township of Montville

Morris County, New Jersey

WHEREAS, one of the purposes of the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law is to provide space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses in order to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens, and

WHEREAS, the State of New Jersey has determined that there is a need for additional child care facilities in the State, noting that the State has highlighted its strong legislative policy that encourages zoning for child care, and emphasizing the fact that more than 50 percent of working-age women are in the workforce, and

WHEREAS, census data reveals that the Township has experienced a significant increase in the number of children under the age of five, as well as an increase in the number of families where both adults in the household are working, and

WHEREAS, the Municipal Land Use Law provides that child care centers shall be permitted as a permitted use in all non-residential zones in municipalities within the State, and

WHEREAS the Township acknowledges that the Township’s population has also experienced a significant increase in its elderly population, and

WHEREAS, the available census data indicates that, between the years 1990 and 2000, the percentage of the Township’s population that is minimally age sixty-five has increased from nine percent of the population to eleven percent of the population, and

WHEREAS, the available census data indicates that, between the years 1990 and 2000 the Township has experienced a fifty-six percent increase in the number of residents that are minimally age sixty-five, and

WHEREAS the Township of Montville recognizes that the provision of child care centers and elder care centers should be encouraged in light of the above, and

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville has determined that there are certain areas within he Township that are zoned for residential use, that also permit non-residential uses as a conditional use, and

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville has determined that the R-27D Zone, where residential uses are permitted as a principal permitted use and offices are permitted as a conditional use, is a zone where child care centers and elder care centers would be appropriate.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Township of Montville hereby amends Chapter 16 of the Revised General Ordinances of the Township of Montville to permit Child Care Centers and Elder Care Centers in the R27D Zone as follows:

1.         Amend Section 16.04.040 Definitions, as follows:  Add a definition for Elder Care Centers stating “A facility providing daytime shelter, care, social activities and support services to elderly persons in need of physical assistance in the course of daily living”.

2.         Amend Section 16.44.010 Schedule C Permitted Uses, as follows:   Identify Child Care Centers as a principal permitted use in the R-27D Zone by the placement of an “X” in the Child Care Center category under the column entitled R-27 A, B, C & D.

Amend Section 16.44.010 Schedule C Permitted Uses, as follows:  Add a Footnote #46 to Schedule C stating “Child care centers shall be permitted only in the R-27D Zone”.

Amend Section 16.44.010 Schedule C Permitted Uses, as follows: Identify Elder Care Centers as a principal permitted use in the R-27D Zone by the addition of an Elder Care Center category to the list of Miscellaneous Uses and the placement of an “X” in the Elder Care Center category under the column entitled R-27 A, B, C & D.

Amend Section 16.44.010 Schedule C Permitted Uses, as follows:  Add a Footnote #47 to Schedule C stating “Elder care centers shall be permitted only in the R-27D Zone”.

Amend Section 16.44.020 Schedule D Schedule of Zoning Requirements, by adding Child Care Centers and Elder Care Centers to the list of Primary Permitted Uses in the R-27D Zone, and add the following area and bulk regulations:

Minimum Lot Area:                            40,000 square feet

Minimum Lot Width:                          150 feet

Minimum Lot Depth:                          150 feet

Minimum Front Yard:                            50 feet

Minimum Side Yards:                          25 feet

Minimum Rear Yard:                            50 feet

Minimum Perimeter Buffer:              25 feet of planted buffer area along side & rear lot lines, with solid fencing and insulating barrier along buffer where abutting a residential use or zone.

Maximum Building Coverage:            20 percent

Maximum Impervious Coverage:            55 percent

Maximum Building Height:             2 stories/30 feet

7.         Amend Section 16.44.020 Schedule D Schedule of Zoning Requirements, by adding the following footnotes pertaining to Child Care Centers in the R-27D Zone:

Footnote # 24.  Minimum Outdoor Play Area:  There shall be a minimum of 150 sq ft of outdoor play area for the first five children, plus an additional 30 sq ft of play area per child at peak usage.

Footnote # 25.  Licensure.  All childcare centers shall be licensed by the New Jersey Department of Human Services, and shall provide proof of licensure or application indicting that such licensure is in the process of being obtained.

Footnote # 26 Prohibitions.  No portion of a property may be used for childcare purposes that are within 100 feet of a residential use or zone.

If any section or provision of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid in any Court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall not affect the other sections of provisions of this Ordinance, except insofar as the section or provision so declared invalid shall be inseparable from the remainder of any portion thereof.

All ordinances or parts of ordinances, which are inconsistent herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

This Ordinance shall take effect immediately after final passage and publication in the manner provided by law.

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  reviewed the R27D areas and proposed use.  


Michael Egelson – residents at 20 Dogwood Circle, what does this mean?  Bought property with intended knowledge that there were wetlands and nothing could be built back in this area, and that you will see parking lights and asphalt in areas that were not to be developed.  Put a lot of monies in his home.  Would like to know and/or see a plan as to what this ordinance would do. 

Indicated his neighbor wanted to put in a pool, but couldn’t have a patio due to coverage regulations, yet we allow a 40,000 sq. ft. building on a lot that was subjected to flood recently.  He would like some feedback on how this impacts his home and neighbors. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  there aren’t any plans at this time for this type of use, but if someone comes in with a plan for this activity, the Planning Board would have to review this plan at which time the citizens are noticed to apply to Planning Board.  The ordinance only allows the use; applicants are still subject to a plan to reflect this activity and site changes, if any.

If they meet requirements of zoning and this new amendment, the applicant would then be permitted to occupy.  This site already received the benefit of site plan approvals, and these plans are available for review at the Land Use Office.  The plans approved are for office buildings only.  Ladis Karkowsky:  confirmed that this site has a plan on file and reflects what was approved.  Any change would require reappearance before the Planning Board to reflect outside use.  The office plan may be used.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP: this ordinance won’t allow development of wetlands.  Those laws are not affected by this ordinance and still apply.  There is no plan before us; owner of this site only has approval for office building.  Ms. Nielson indicated that as far as she is aware the owner has no tenants for this office building.  Applicants will receive public notice if there is an amended site plan.  Ms. White indicated that the board’s policy is to provide General notice on tenants if sites like these are within 200’ of a residence, so new tenants will generate a notice also. 

Michael Egelson indicated that with Changebridge under water in last storm, what plans are proposed for new drainage?  Stan Omland, PE:  ordinances were in place that required developer to meet, and this site did receive all approvals.  There are more strict regulations today, but this applicant complied with all regulations and also complied with the Rockaway River notice.   

Gary Lewis:  elder care is a low intensity in use, and this is type of use that you would want near a neighborhood. 

Irene Kriven, Dogwood Circle:  didn’t know that office use was a permitted use, having just moved into area, and voiced concerns about this is more of a country area and we should maintain this rural look.  She asked questions about the site plan, and was advised to review the site plan on file.  The office building is under construction now, and was approved for office use and as per Ms. Nielson, depicts existing wetlands. 

Mrs. White confirmed all residents within 200’ of affected areas were noticed.

Motion to recommend adoption made by Art Daughtry, Seconded by: Gary Lewis

Roll call vote: Unanimous Roll call vote:  Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull, Art Daughtry, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines   

Industrial zones I1 & I2 – Discussion:  existing uses & retail use consideration

Linda White indicated she forwarded an email on this subject last week, noting that this subject has been discussed at an EDC level and she has received inquiries from existing warehouse owners about the possibility of allowing more retail and/or an overlay to allow retail in existing I zones.  The EDC felt that redevelopment of some of the larger industrial buildings to provide for interior high end retail type of uses may help to revitalize and promote economic stability/growth. Ms. White indicated she was requested by the owner of one of the units on Indian Lane East to consider more retail as part of the existing industrial. (Feed Store Company).  

Gary Lewis:  not unsympathetic to some consideration for limited retail and think it is a successful way to promote business.  He elaborated.  Doesn’t feel it is worst thing in world.  Not an uncommon provision.

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  we have a cap now have 1,000 sq. ft. and it is typical to allow 10% with a cap depending on type of retail.  Manufacturing may require smaller place but if you are selling furniture, you have to consider type of use.  Art Daughtry:  it makes sense, but if you do retail, parking may be different.  Parking is a problem.  Ordinance would address this.

Think it is a good idea per Tony Speciale.  It’s a good idea.  Ladis Karkowsky:  would be concerned about a deli.  It would be a combination.  Joseph Bu                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       rgis, AICP, PP:  would it be a fixed capped size?  Gary Lewis:  tie retail to the principal use of the building.  Ladis Karkowsky:  Rt. 202 Vreeland Farm has expanded their operation.  Have Anthony Petrillo notify them of expansion.  Parking calculations come into play.  Stan Omland, PE:  parking standards are also self-limited. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP was asked to get a cost proposal.  Not included in budget.  Next meeting Mr. Burgis will have a cost proposal available. 

Office of Smart Growth’s response to the Policy Issues in the County’s

Cross-Acceptance Report

Linda White indicated that she sent this document to the Planning Board members by email, noting that the township had sent in a request to the County who asked the state to consider the appropriateness of creating Centers in the PA4 and PA5 areas since Montville thought the center concept was inappropriate in these areas.  The state disagreed noting that the decision to create a center begins at the local level in any planning area, and that if a town in a PA 4 or 5 chooses to grow, the growth should be guided into centers to preserve open space, farmland and natural resources.  Plan endorsement ‘does not require’ creation of a center.  The state’s response is on the info emailed and copied in board’s packages.


Informal review for location of a 12x12 gazebo on Dog Park – Eagle Scout Project

Linda White indicated that this is another Eagle Scout project, and would require permission from Township Committee level.  We waived formal site plan and offered no objections to the Purple Heart monument on community field property.  Plans are in your packages, and if ok, would offer a favorable response to Township Committee on this new Eagle Scout Project.

Gary Lewis involved in living near this scout.  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  not concerned with waiver of site plan. 

Make it subject to township engineer and public works supervisor who can coordinate this for placement/drainage.  No objection offered to request for gazebo.

PMISC07-17 Ceriol Foods, Inc. – 30 Chapin Rd. Unit 1207-1208 – B: 183, L: 7.1 – office (3,054 s.f.)/warehouse (9,674 s.f.) for import/export of food products - 6 employees – hours of operation 8am-6pm Mon-Fri – One 20’-40’ delivery truck per day – signage to be in compliance with approved theme (First Industrial)

Approved in a motion made by: Art Daughtry 

Seconded by: Larry Hines 

Subject to compliance with all agency findings, use letter submitted, and sign theme previously approved.  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

APPROVED: MAY 24, 2007

WHEREAS, First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., and Winebow, Inc., as a prospective tenant of a portion of the premises known as Lots 2 and 3, Block 169, as shown on the Tax Map of the Township of Montville, and which property is located at 20 Hook Mountain Road, applied to the Planning Board of the Township of Montville for amended preliminary and final site plan approval, so as to effect a change in tenancy, as well as certain specified site improvements; and

WHEREAS, the owner of said property consented in writing to applicant’s prosecution of the within matter; and

WHEREAS, the development of said property is as shown various site plan submissions, including plans entitled “First Industrial Realty Trust”, prepared by Professional Planning and Engineering, dated January 26, 2007, all of which have been considered by the Board, in conjunction with this application; and

WHEREAS, the applications and maps have been submitted to all of the appropriate municipal entities and reviewing agencies and the Planning Board has received reports and recommendations and has considered the same during the pendency of this application; and

WHEREAS, this matter was initially considered by the Board on an application for waiver of site plan, a hearing on which application was held on January 11, 2007, resulting in the amendment of said application into one for amended preliminary and final site plan; and

WHEREAS, this matter was considered by the Board in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Land Use Law and the Land Use Regulations of the Township of Montville, at public hearings held on February 8, 2007, and February 22, 2007, during which hearings reports were presented and the public was given the opportunity to submit questions, comments, and objections relative to the proposed development of the subject property, at which time an electronic recording was made of said hearings; and

WHEREAS, in conjunction with this aspect of the site plan, reports were submitted to the Planning Board members by the Planning Board Engineer, including those of February 8, 2007, and February 20, 2007, and the Municipal Planner, including that of February 6, 2007, all of which reports, together with amendments and supplements thereto, whether presented in writing or offered orally at the Public Hearing, are made a part of this Resolution and incorporated in their entirety by reference herein, the Board having also considered them as well as the evidence submitted by the applicant; and

WHEREAS, in conjunction with this application, applicants petition the Board, to the extent necessary, for variance relief, pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S. 40:55D-70(c) so as to permit the erection of said wall in a location too close to adjacent residential areas; and

WHEREAS, the Board makes the following findings:
1. Applicant Winebow is a prospective tenant of a portion of those premises known as Lots 2 and 3 in Block 169, located at 20 Hook Mountain Road in the Township of Montville.  Said premises are improved with several conforming structures. The site already violates various provisions of the Land Use Ordinance in that its coverage and floor area ratios are too high.

2.  Applicants petition this Board for amended preliminary and final site plan approval to effect a change in tenancy, for some structural changes to the buildings, and for the erection of a sound barrier.  Applicant Winebow proposes to occupy a portion of the premises, operating a wine distribution business, a permitted use in the I-1A zone.

3.  The Board has carefully reviewed the proposal and finds that same complies with the provisions of the Ordinance respecting site plans and may proceed, subject to the conditions hereinafter specified.

4.  As respects the proposed variance relief, same relates to the siting of a sound barrier too close to the adjacent residential zones.  Said wall may be considered to be an accessory structure, necessitating variance relief for its location. 

5.  The Board is well familiar with this site, having dealt with it repeatedly over the course of the years.  Its location – close approximate to numerous homes – created numerous noise problems for the residents over the years.  Applicant proposes to erect the sound barrier in an attempt to mitigate some of those noise problems.

6.  Applicant offered testimony that, when complete, the wall will provide significant mitigation of noise generated on site, to the substantial benefit of the nearby residents. The location of same is that which, assertedly, will provide optimal noise mitigation, consistent with the location of structures and improvements lawful extant on site. 

7.  Applicant avers that walls are not, in fact, structures such as would require variance relief.  The Board finds that it need not address this subject, as the evidence for relief, pursuant to section (c)(2) of the statute is so compelling.  While the impact to the adjacent neighbors of locating a structure too close to the zone line is minimal, the value of this particular structure may be significant.  The Board concludes that the benefits to the community of this proposed sound barrier outweigh any possible harms and that same constitutes a better zoning alternative than that which would be permitted through strict conformity with the Ordinance.

WHEREAS, based upon the factual and legal conclusions set forth above, together with the conditions incorporated in this Resolution, the Board is satisfied that applicants demonstrated that the proposal is consistent with the site plan requirements set forth in the Land Development Ordinance of the Township of Montville pursuant to the provisions of the statute in such cases made and provided, and that entitlement to variance relief, pursuant to N.J.S. 40:55D-70(c)(2) has been established;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Montville Township Planning Board on this 24th day of May, 2007, that Application No. PMS 04/C07-03 of Winebow, Inc., and First Industrial realty Trust, Inc., for amended preliminary and final site plan approval so as to permit a change of tenancy, various structural modifications, and the installation of a sound barrier, all as shown on the approved plans, be and hereby is approved subject to the following terms, conditions and obligations to be performed by the applicant:

a)  The development shall comply with all agency reports and findings received by the Planning Board, to the extent not inconsistent with this resolution.  Any substantial deviation or any deviation therefrom not otherwise approved by the Planning Board Engineer will constitute a violation of this approval and will necessitate an appearance before the Planning Board for reconsideration or approval. 

b)  All fees related to this application, escrow accounts for professionals, and monies due to the Township, including current tax payments shall be made prior to the execution of any maps, deeds, or the granting of any approvals or permits.  Applicant shall post all bonds as may be deemed necessary by the Planning Board Engineer for site work not requiring a building permit.

c) Applicant shall comply with all state, federal, or county regulations respecting this property and permission to commence any construction on the premises is contingent upon first having obtained all such necessary approvals.

d) Additional plantings and landscaping shall be installed as represented, the final location of which, together with the number, species, and size of any such plantings to be to the satisfaction of the Planning Board Engineer and the Municipal Planner.  Applicant shall post a maintenance guarantee, the amount of which shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Board Engineer, which guarantee shall be held for a period of two years, to ensure the replacement of any trees or plantings along the line of the sound barrier, or as installed pursuant to this Resolution.  In the event that any of same shall die, applicant shall forthwith replace them.

e) Immediately upon the installation of the sound barrier herein contemplated, applicant shall, at its own expense conduct a test at the residential zone line, the results of which test shall be immediately transmitted to the Planning Board Engineer for his review. If the noise level at such boundary line exceeds 50 DBA, this approval shall be null and void, of no force or effect whatsoever, and applicant shall forthwith cease operations, or shall immediately reapply to this Board for appropriate relief.

f) Applicant shall prepare a deed recitation – or similar, recordable instrument – respecting the necessity for the sound barrier, and the maintenance thereof, which document shall be to the satisfaction f the Planning Board Attorney and the Planning Board Engineer.  Said restriction shall provide that same may be amended by this Board upon further application by the property owner or its designee.

g) Applicant shall take no deliveries via tractor-trailer before 7 AM or after 8 PM, and shall permit same only Monday-Friday.  Such shall also constitute applicant’s normal business hours, with only rare weekend hours being kept. 

h) This approval shall not extend to the installation of an additional sound barrier along Hook Mountain Road, referenced in testimony at the February 22, 2007, same to be the subject of a new application, should applicant contemplate installing same.

i) There shall be no use of the “rear” of the building, located toward the residential side of the property, until final certification is obtained from the land Use Office of the Township of Montville that the sound barrier has been installed and passed the requisite tests specified above.

j) The performance bonds hereinbefore specified shall be released upon provision of “as built” plans satisfactory to the Planning Board Engineer.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board reserves the right to require an amended or revised application in the event that State/County permits require any significant revision in lay-out or concept of the conditionally approved plans and no final approval shall issue if this is not done.

And lastly, the applicant shall comply with all the terms and conditions and the requirements of the Codes and Ordinances of the Township of Montville and of the State of New Jersey in all respects, including latest amendments, unless otherwise specified by this resolution.

Motion to approve made by: Deborah Nielson; Seconded by: John Visco; Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull, Art Daughtry, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines   





Minutes of 4-26-07 – Roll call vote: Marie Kull, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty

Minutes of Subcommittee Meeting of 5-14-07:  Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, John Rosellini, John Visco, Deborah Nielson 

Motion to approve made by:  Tony Speciale 

Seconded by: by: Larry Hines 

Roll call vote: Unanimous


Omland Engineering – O/E for: $240, $630; $90; Trust for: $120; $120; $480; $120

Uhl, Baron, Rana – Sharpe Trust for: $1,300

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $720; $120; $390; $90; $60; $660; $270; $180; $480

Johnson Murphy – Trust for: $90

Burgis Associates – O/E for: $30; $300; Trust: $240; $60; $480; $150; $90; $475; $510

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $275.50

Motion to approve made by: Deborah Nielson

Seconded by: Larry Hines 

Roll call vote: unanimous - Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull, Art Daughtry, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines   


LOI Line Verifications

B: 184, L: 2 – 65 Rt. 46 – Kekon Realty – LOI – Linda White summarized indicating that this is the parcel of land owned by the Konners which is being considered for redevelopment as a lifestyle center.  She indicated the board should be aware that the Hertz Penske site is not part of this since they are going to rely on the footprint of the eixsitng building and hope in the future to redevelop this area as a high-end restaurant.  Ms. White reminded the board she sent an email to members on a proposed tenant they wish to have in the Hertz Penske site on a ‘temporary’ situation until they go forward with their redevelopment plans.  This was a trucking company, which would have outdoor storage.  She indicated she suggested to the realtor that this whole site come in with a overall development plan that reflects their overall goals on this site so the Board can work with them.  They have chosen to respond by considering the site as individual and want to come with a waiver.  General discussion ensued.  The Planning Board asked Ms. White to send a letter to them suggesting that we work with them on the overall development of this site and that we would like to talk with them and ask that we meet with them on a general development plan as part of a rezoning request.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  discussed how a General development Plan noting it is generally done with a tract of land that has at least a 100 acre base.  Motion to authorize the letter to Konners made by:  John Visco, Seconded by: Gary Lewis    Roll Call vote: unanimous

LOI – B : 52.03, L : 19, 21 & 22 – Vreeland Ave. - GPF (Gannon) – Stan Omland summarized indicative that this is a  6 acres west of Longview in R27A possible 6-10 lots near cul de sac and Longview.


PMSP/F00-25-06-03 – BRIANNA ESTATES – Block: 125.05, L: 13/14 – Horseneck Road – Preliminary and Final Major Subdivision – 6 lots and detention lot - Notice Acceptable & Carried from hearing of 11-06-06 & 1-25-07   Eligible voters:  Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Jim Glick, Larry Hines, Leigh Witty, Art Daughtry, Tony Speciale                                                                                     ACT BY: 7/31/07

Applicant will provide new notice for July hearing.  Time already extended by applicant’s attorney. 

PMN06-04 – BECK – 15 Glenview Road – B: 31 L: 13 – Minor Subdivision & Associated Variances - Carried from 10-26-06 & 3/22/07 & 4-26-07 – 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: 6/30/07

Request to carry to June 28th Planning Board meeting w/notice preserved approved unanimously in a Motion made by: Deborah Nielson, Seconded by: John Visco Unanimous

PMISC04-43 858 ROUTE 202 ASSOCIATES, LLC – 858 Rt. 202 - B: 110, L: 17.01 – Request for extension of time for completion beyond June 2007

Linda White indicated she had a meeting with the owner, the administrator and the Health director, and that the owner Mr. Dabies is working on pushing Sunoco to sign the clean up order.  He asked for permission to extend the June completion date for installation of lights/landscaping from June 30th for at least another 3-6 months.

Art Daughtry:  points out how DEP is really bad.  When you have three corporations involved and they don’t pursue.  2 years since Board of Adjustment.  Verbal agreement exists but no written document.   

NEW BUSINESS                                                                 

PMS/C 07-03 – SUPPA RESTAURANT – Minor Site plan/variances for parking to allow 4,566 sf of existing space to use for storage, retail sales, offices and a banquet hall to existing 3,619 sq. ft. restaurant use – Notice Acceptable                                           ACT BY:    8/4/07


(Note: Mr. Daughtry left)

Present:  Steve Schepis, Esq. & Kim Parkins, Part Center IV Property owner - sworn

Board professionals sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.

Mr. Parkins reviewed the entire facility.  Owners of site, and 3 years ago undertook renovation of the building, including landscaping, parking, and signage. Facility as it exists now consists of:  Suppa’s Restaurant, dining and take out; Pine Brook Cleaners, One Human Performance Fitness Center one on one training and approved gym fitness center, and available space that used to be Dupont Graphics.

Status of prior approvals:  did extensive façade changes, special landscaping changes, tried to get bids for lighting for Sternberg lights and didn’t get a bid for a while.  Approached them and got a bid, ground was frozen, and approached to get new bid and electrician lined up and should be in within 60 days.  Township is holding $44,000 for these improvements.  As part of these improvements for Suppa, there was testimony about on-site parking and how Suppa would be more than adequately suited for this facility.  How do you anticipate these changes?

Mr. Parkins:  tried to select mixed uses for parking on site.  Mr. Suppa restaurant is more of a nighttime operation.  Dry Cleaners use till 7 at night and have about 3 cars at any one time.

One on One use parking discussed indicating little needs for parking because there has to be a trainer, it is limited for this facility.  The 24- hour gym, he will have people throughout the day, but peak hours are early and/or 5-7 at night and these are usually quiet on weekends.

As to parking use, been there for over 20 years and know this site.  He conducted Interviews with tenants coming in.  Feels needs is higher than it really needs to be.  Won’t find a 9-5-office use.

Mr. Schepis:  did an analysis of demand and parking of facility.  Suppa’s restaurant is supposed to be 80, and at night it probably has 8-10 cars during the night for this facility and on Friday and weekends, probably more.

Discussed dry cleaners parking needs and parking needs of One Human Performance and most popular is at 7Am or at 7PM at night.

Mr. Schepis:  ratio of spaces available:  on average ¾ of parking lot is empty.  Only time it has ever been filled is when other people use this parking lot.  There are probably 84 spots and have 65 spots open.  Do you need to police non-tenants using this facility?  He indicated that other than posting signage, outside parking is difficult to control.  Owned since l986.  He hasn’t had a parking problem at this facility.

Gary Lewis:  understand representations of available parking, but without doing math, this shortage is substantial.  What efforts were made to secure additional parking on a leased basis or crossed use basis on either side?  Mr. Parkins:  did approach other property owners.

Mr. Schepis:  on paper, is substantial, but has this parking lot ever been filled.

Dry cleaners are for 1 for 50 sq. ft.      Deborah Nielson:  is more than 50%

Parking:  required are 263 where 84 spaces exist, doesn’t include valet; maximum impervious coverage is existing at 71.87% and non-conforming set back for roadways for existing building, proposed accessory structure for canopy over staircase in front yard, and variances for valet parking size for aisles and size of stalls, and signage requested for signs on canopy and some directional signs.

Signs near One human performance and on wall of dry cleaners.  Mr. Burgis: how many seats in and how many proposed:  69 approved and requesting additional 72 seats (141 seats); parking goes to square footage of restaurant.  One space for 45 sq. ft. required for restaurant use.

Feels negative impact and criteria can be met.  Gary Lewis:  will there be traffic experts testifying to this?  Mr. Schepis:  valet expert.

James Cutillo sworn

Credentials accepted

Plan displayed reflects floor plan layout.  Explained design as to circulation and number of seats.  69 approved and 72 proposed in banquet area.  Proposing restrooms, storage area, and a service door that leads into kitchen so that there is a flow in one area.  There is a loading area out back that will be utilized.  Another area will be used for preparation.  Another area is sales where they will sell some products that come from the restaurants.   This type of product would be sold.  There are also additional office areas.  Everything is on interior, except for the canopy over the stairs that is proposed for safety reasons.  Only other change:  addition of a window vs existing door.

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  what is dimensions of banquet room:  Mr. Cutillo indicated it is approximately 33x40 or 1450 sq. ft. gross area, down to around 1100 sq. ft. which is how they get occupancy numbers.  Only show two tables and number of tables can be increased.  Code allows for every occupant must have 15 sq. ft.  but not gross area. 

Mr. Schepis:  would agree with seating showing 69 seats in restaurant and 72 in banquet room.  There is no liquor license.  Would accept that if there were a liquor license involved, would come back. 

Deborah Nielson:  kitchen area is large in proportion.  Is it proposed to have 3 kitchen areas?  Some of these kitchen areas would be used for prep, and some for product that would be used for sale.  Rear areas would be cold area.

Ladis Karkowsky:  is parking proposed including all areas in building, occupied and/or vacant?

Dupont Retail:  counted vacancy as retail for parking calculations.

Anthony Friese, Esq. represents C&L Realty.  Opposition to request expansion.

Questioned:  Plan indicates storage area is 1406 sq. ft.  Banquet room is 1450 sq. ft.  What is proposed storage for?  Mr. Cutillo:  not sure, retail/restaurant.  Access is only thru the kitchen.

Mr. Suppa:  sworn


2 ½ years ago appeared before this board for approval of restaurant at which time this board approved 69 seats.  He explained operation.  Restaurant and take out area explained.   Running 1 ½ and running at capacity and 2/3 of parking lot is empty.  Turned down requests for parties and this is simple expansion.  Will do valet parking if needed.  Storage:  there is no basement; a lot of freezer and machinery.

Mr. Schepis:  storage presently exists in kitchen area, and is stacked up, and desire to open up and create a new kitchen as per plan, and thru kitchen will be entrance to storage facility, and only access will be thru kitchen.  There are bathrooms that separate storage area and no other way to enter this room.

Have a banquet or small party, take out business, need another kitchen for activity.  The type of gatherings discussed.  Would like t o attract parties like graduation, christenings, etc?

Tract 4

Been in this business around 17 years.  Cannot accomplish parties in this area, and only do these types of parties on Sundays and close it.  Came to square footage since Mr. Parkins moved out and this is what he was willing to lease this area as a package.  Is storage area larger than needed, yes, but needed to lease package.  Did all of this to code.

Show a retail sales area:  this is for customers that are serviced already.  Ladis Karkowsky:  this is on same level?  Where is access?  Access is off Changebridge.  Items that are on take out menu now. 

Mr. Schepis:  as to two directional signs?  What is this need?  Mr. Suppa:  located in far center and majority of parking is below.  Have worked with township on controlling retail and restaurant area.

Mr. Karkowsky:  for retail use and banquet use, how many additional employees do you anticipate?  Mr. Suppa: two waiters and maybe more help in kitchen, comes down to waiters.  Retail would be about 2 people.  Won’t be a separate business.  Will be part of Suppa.  Haven’t thought it out as to how it will be done. 

Deborah Nielson:  additional employees?  What about additional deliveries?  Mr. Suppa:  noting would increase.   It is the same menu but more quantity.  With added space and dock, deliveries can now come into dock and go into storage area.  Presently get deliveries by parking in existing parking lots and wheel it in.

Mr. Schepis:  variances for canopy discussed.  Mr. Suppa:  proposing this canopy and valet and would be a nice area for people to wait for cars and people now unload, and a canopy will show you where to go for valet.  This will be perfect addition.  Would be a safer situation.  Internally lit.  Material reviewed colors are bronze/rust striped on sides and front would be solid rust.

Hours of operation discussed.  Closed on Sundays.  Open for parties on Sundays.

What about on-site parking?  Mr. Suppa:  no problem, and there is parking lot spaces available, at least 2/3 empty.  If there is no parking, won’t get clients.  If there was inadequate facility, wouldn’t do it.

Mr. Suppa asked about adjacent tenants in facility and parking needs.  Compliments his use. Most are closed on Sundays in facility. 

Mr. Schepis:  will use valet service.  Will use valet services of an outside company who is present to testify.  Developed valet plan with nice flow and no backup onto Changebridge, Rt. 46 and Old Bloomfield.  Will not have this problem.  Will increases parking needs by 21.  Don’t believe it will be needed but is available.  Mr. Schepis:  as to number of seats proposed and existing, Mr. Suppa agrees that these numbers and seating would be part of this approval.  Premises have no bar and/or liquor license, and if there were intent, this board would take jurisdiction on parking approvals/use approvals.   

Mr. Frese:  adding 72 seats, and only adding 3 new people for this use.  How is this?  Mr. Suppa:  he might have to add one chef and two waiters.  Mr. Suppa:  presently on Friday nights he use 3-4 waiters.  Mr. Suppa:  banquets are fewer requirements for this type of use.

Hugo Zavala, valet representative

Stated this business 10 years ago and has 14 years in this field.  Explained his experience with hotels, office buildings, private parties, etc.  Was contacted to run his parking lot.  Worked at Tiffany Restaurant for 8 years on Saturday nights.

Have 3 valet staff members.  Valet plan reviewed.  Temporary A-Frame signs will b e used and will direct traffic one way and will drive cars to designated spaces.  Valet allows more cars.  Employees will be posted with 2 at one location and one near Rt. 46.  Drop off area and will drive cars around.  Canopy discussed.  Pickup will be at stair area.  The entire area will be parking.  He explained operation.  People will wait under the canopy.  If someone else comes into facility, how will this be handled?  Will direct them to use any open spaces.   Busiest time:  weekends at 8PM on Saturday.  Busy times are sometimes Friday at 7PM, but Saturday at 8PM.  3 people would be assigned to this site.  Have insurance, etc.

Ladis Karkowsky: during holidays, there is more demand for valet parking on this site, and can it be handled?  Mr. Zavala:  has a limit to the operation, so he cannot go over the number.  Around holidays, do you have sufficient staff for busier seasons?  Mr. Zavala indicated he does. 

Larry Hines:  entering parking lot from Changebridge, what is preventing driver to stop under awning and let someone out?  How will this be handled?  Mr. Zavala:  will have signs. 

Mr. Hines discussed his concerns.  Mr. Zavala:  ask them to pull the car further up.  Most important thing is not to have a backup.  What happenings if I am coming from Bloomfield Avenue?  There will be signs directing you.

Mr. Schepis:  sole entrance is off of Changebridge.  Mr. Suppa:  will only use if there is a need for it.  Can use valet service for parties. 

Gary Lewis:  community party:  leave church at 1:30 and head over in one procession and come in off Rt. 46 onto Changebridge, and want to be parked simultaneously, you set valet close at Changebridge, so how do you control this?  They are located about 5-6 car lengths off Changebridge.  Put it all inside and then park them.  Gary Lewis:  concerned about Changebridge Road location of valet station.  Sounds like it is being responded to, but concerns about spilling onto Changebridge Road.

How about closing off Changebridge Road.  Fire department services need to be addressed as to closure.

Gary Lewis:  driving aisles on west and Rt. 46 must be designated to serve this building, but has to make sure these driving aisles are not impacted since fire department has to respond.

Stan Omland, PE:  lacking a liqueur license, more comfortable, but if there is one issued, then there are concerns.  Lacking license, less concerned.  The need for valet is organization of valet service and notice by restaurant owner is a must.  Troubled about circulation and queuing issues, but if valet company is well staffed and well organized, may work.  Will there be any kiosks?  Is it all under canopy?  Keyboard will be stored near stop sign.  Mr. Omland:  in inclement weather, will have to see if there are any overhangs. 

Need fire officials on traveled aisles.  There are three areas to pull hose.  Initial testimony is that there is abundance of parking and don’t need a valet, but will provide a valet plan.  Won’t use it only for special events.  Will use if the Board requires it on Friday and Saturday, and Mr. Suppa knows what is available.

Isn’t there 7,390 sq. ft. of vacant space?  Stan Omland, PE:  the applicant and property owner may have a problem with available parking.  1 for 180 sq. ft. variance is for required parking.  Mr. Burgis:  allocated five cars to this space for vacancy.  Mr. Parkins indicated this facility would probably be used for office space.

Ladis Karkowsky: what is space downstairs?  Mr. Parkins: 4400.  Notes on plan are measured over five years, and not sure of parking vs calculation.   Must have numbers reconciled. 

Mr. Omland:  there are notes that make it hard as to what it is supposed to say.  Stan Omland, PE requires this table to be prepared by a licensed professional.  Ladis Karkowsky:  space that exists is inconsistent with plans and testimony. 

Mr. Schepis:  4400 on first floor and vacant space upstairs adds to 7,390 sq. ft. Includes all vacant space.  Stan Omland, PE:  why are five parking space measured for vacant space?  Why would you do that?

Larry Hines:  asked of Mr. Suppa – if you are not using banquet space, and have an overflow, how will you use this.  If you don’t have a party and you have an overflow in restaurant space, would you use it?  Mr. Suppa:  will not use for restaurant use. 

Banquet use is for large parties:  anything over 5 couples. 

Won’t bring valet service back at next meeting.  Board is acceptable to that.  Applicant agreed to bring their architect back.  Building is 28,000 sq. ft. overall.  Concerns voiced that on Van Cleef’s site plan, there is only one accessible parking area and concern rose as to how do you get ADA citizens to the restaurant.  Mr. Schepis indicated there should be a certain number already existing.  Gary Lewis:  feels this does impact exterior of building, and would like the Planning Board to see this issue and what is required for ADA for change of use, and if there are accessible requirements for change of use, how many are required and how are they going to get an accessible route of travel. Applicant will address.  Anything happened inside would be addressed for handicap access, but the site engineer may not know about outside needs for ADA so if they need to get additional info, to obtain same for next meeting. 

Ms. White asked if there would be any other experts presented from opposition.  Mr. Freze indicated negatively.  Mr. Suppa explained ADA access:  handicap is on takeout side.  The citizen is allowed into door for emergency access into existing restaurant.

Gary Lewis:  as you add occupancy, it is conceivable you have to add spaces.  The space by the loading bay not sure if it is accessible to curb ramp.  Applicant asked to address.

Carried to: with notice preserved to June 28th, 2007

Motion made by:  John Visco

Seconded by:  Tony Speciale  

Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines   

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 & carried from agenda of 4-26-07 & 5-10-07 w/notice                                                                                                                              ACT BY:  6-15-07

Due to time constraints, this application was Carried to: June 14, 2007 with notice preserved in a motion made by:  Larry Hines, Seconded by: Marie Kull

Roll call vote: unanimous                    Mr. Schepis agreed to extension of time. 



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

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White


Called w/explanation

Called w/explanation

Certified to 11-06-06

Certified to 11-06-06

Must certify to 4-26-07

Certified to 4-26-07

Must certify to 4-26-07

Last Updated ( Thursday, 21 February 2008 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack