|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2007
ROLL CALL
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
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
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.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
None
PLANNING BUSINESS
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.
TRACT 2
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.
WAIVERS
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
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
TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION
OF AMENDED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL
APPLICATION
NO. PMS 04/C07-03
WINEBOW
& FIRST INDUSTRIAL REALTY TRUST, INC.
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
CORRESPONDENCE
None
MINUTES
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
INVOICES
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/DEP
NOTIFICATIONS
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.
OLD BUSINESS
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
TRACT 3
(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
Owner
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.
CONCEPTS
None
Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion made by: Larry Hines, Seconded by: John Visco
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. White
Secretary
|
