PB Minutes 6-28-07 Print E-mail


6:30 PM Special Meeting

7:30 Regular Meeting

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Mr. Rosellini – entrance noted              Mr. Karkowsky - present

Ms. Kull – present                         Mr. Daughtry - present

Ms. Nielson - present                         Mr. Visco - absent

Mr. Lipari - absent                         Mr. Lewis - present

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

Mr. Witty (alt#2) - present

Also Present:

Stan Omland, PE

Michael Carroll, Esq.

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP







(Note:  public discussion held at end of meeting – see Tract 4)

Review of Industrial Zone/Retail Component:

Deborah Nielson:  indicated that the Township Committee discussed the request for extra funding of $1,200 allowing Mr. Burgis to undertake his study as to adding additional retail component in industrial properties, indicating this was also something the EDC supported.  The Township Committee approved this request and will fund it.  Planning Board appreciated this support. 

John Rosellini:  asked if we were looking at all I zones throughout the entire community or would the study limited to one area only?  Voiced concerns that this would be allowed in all I zones, noting some of these are remote and on side streets.  Mr. Burgis indicated he would conduct a study of the issue and would address what could and/or should be done for industrial zones.  Gary Lewis:  reminded board that we would want a percentage of retail in a warehouse, but that we would want to see a ceiling on the amount overall.  John Rosellini:  feels the focus may be to those I zones that are adjacent and/or mixed up with businesses and commercial establishments, and that these are the areas that may benefit most, and we should stay away from remote industrial areas or industrial zoning that are located on side streets.  Deborah Nielson:  agreed that the issue has to be studied and voiced concerns on a warehouse that is the size of Winebow.  This is a study of this component and as stated is in line with what the EDC has been suggesting.  Feels some of the warehouses are self-limited.  This study should be finalized by late August

Camp Dawson Concerns:

John Rosellini asked what was happening with the temporary sign at Camp Dawson.  Art Daughtry and Deborah Nielson indicated it was needed it for locating purposes on temporary basis, and indicated that eventually new signage would be in conjunction with our municipal sign theme. 

Question on GI Report due July 12th:

Tony Speciale:  is the study being conducted by Mr. Burgis going to respond to flood plain, filling issues especially in view of the flooding that occurred this past spring to areas like Adamary?  The issue of the last flood, the amount of fill that was brought in and changes to existing lands discussed as it relates to this site.  The question asked was whether or different land uses will be discussed relative to this subject? Mr. Burgis indicated that his studies would give potential uses.  Will flooding in area be reflected in the study?   Mr. Burgis:  this is beyond planner’s input.  Stan Omland, PE:  this is engineering studies, answering this portion is above flood plain.  When you add impervious coverage, the obligation of township will be to mitigate these types of issues on site.  He elaborated.  Mr. Speciale continued to voice concerns on the amount of water on this site, and if there is displaced floodplain, and how does this come back.  Mr. Omland explained that floodplain is a DEP issue.  A Planning Board regardless of the type of zone always looks this at site plan.  You can, though, ask applicant to be mindful of the floodplain and make sure that you tow line.  Art Daughtry:  we should be able to send a letter to DEP with existing data as to what was done from prior years.  We have development pressure on this property and we would want them to know where your starting point in.  Stan Omland, PE:  the process we established allows this:  when we get in the LOI on this, we correspond direct with the DEP as to our concerns.  He noted that there are old mapping/aerials that are used that are accessible in this type of situation.



Tract 1

6:30 PM – Towaco Center & Master Plan Discussions – informational meeting

Mr. Burgis explained the amendment to the Master Plan, explaining that the expedited completion date of the grant program for this study, his review of the prior master plan documents including the extensive citizen input. Accordingly, this plan was modified to address those concerns resulting in a reduction in the intensity of the development originally envisioned.  This plan takes into consideration the concerns voiced from residents from prior meetings on this plan, especially noting a reduction in both commercial and residential components.  This plan provides for 50,000 to 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial development, with some residential component amounting to about 30 dwelling units.  This is the approximate number of units that may occur in this area and is a large change from the originally approved 120,000 sq. ft. and 160 dwelling units anticipated in the past that produced citizen opposition. 

This plan is generally consistent in the design and content originally proposed by the Taylor Group, and is consistent with the Grant the municipality received.  This process was moved quickly to accommodate the reduced time constraints imposed upon this township by Smart Growth, which escalated this document’s preparation.  He noted there would be modifications to the layout, depth of building, scale of the exhibits.   It also reduces non-residential space to accommodate buildings up front with a greater depth dimension.

Mr. Burgis feels there will be further modifications, but this overall design is consistent to implement these goals.  Plan also provides elimination of back up parking on Rt. 202.  This plan shows parallel parking with the street.  He indicated he also attempted to reinforce a more conventional downtown, by mandating all parking behind the building vs front and on Rt. 202 he is looking to reinforce the character along street edge.

The ordinances will ensure there will be sufficient amount of landscape features, not only along street edge, but also throughout to have an attractive design.  Requirements include not only street trees, but also other plantings in the parking lot.  Plan also requires signage requirements to ensure a modest level of signage to compliment street corridor.  Lighting standards will require attractive light fixtures vs standard streetlights to enhance character.

The ordinance to implement the plan contains specific information as to building façade, faced improvement, mandates glass on front to ensure that you get to see the retail space inside vs just having a blank wall.  40% of at grade has to be window and glass doorway space to ensure pedestrian friendly environment.

Zoning regulations draft distributed.  Mr. Burgis summarized difference between a master plan and a zoning ordinance.  He clarified this meeting is intended to meet with citizens to get their citizen input and feelings on this amended master plan concept many reviewed previously and had objection to.

This ordinance distributed is not the subject of tonight’s hearing, but something like this draft document will be discussed sometime in the future. 

Opened to public discussion…

Michele Caron, Towaco

Asked that Mr. Burgis explain the grant program and process.  Mr. Burgis explained the municipality obtained a grant for $50,000 to conduct planning studies to create community/transit development area. This plan was developed early but due to citizen objection and litigation was tabled to allow a more in depth analysis of documents to analysis citizen concerns.  The scope was specific in grant acceptance:  the goal to encourage mixed use development in transit area.  The grant did not mandate exact amounts, but when you read it, it is designed to request a variety of land uses to enhance the area around train station itself. 

Paul Divoresky – is this type of zoning consistent with type of land that exists.  He noted his concern is that of the aquifer and the report that was rendered by Uhl Associates in this area?  Mr. Burgis indicated this report does respect the prime and restricted aquifer, and regulatory designs do not negate regulations, noting those provisions in place have to be adhered to and applied to when developing.   This Master Plan was set up to honor and respect our aquifer and all uses currently permitted in aquifer are the ones being considered in this document.   There are safeguards built in for aquifer protection.

Mr. Burgis elaborated.  Paul Divoresky raised concerns on building in this type of area including soil coverage because of aquifer.   Mrs. White indicated she has received an initial draft report from Environmental Commission that the document was also forward to Mr. Uhl and many other agencies in the community involved in development review processes. 

Also mentioned was the new Wellhead Protection Ordinance that is being introduced to protect this area. Mr. Paul Divoresky felt the Planning Board should go back to Mr. Uhl’s report and have this reviewed against those documents.  Mr. Omland elaborated on the protection and enhanced stormwater management techniques that are required to be addressed with development in the aquifer.  There is a large body of documentation in this regard.  Will make sure it is reviewed.  Gary Lewis:  one of the items in this master plan is the incorporation of sustainable development numbers tied to impervious coverage, and the buildings will incorporate environmentally safe designs, and there are a lot of things built into the project that although you may see more impervious, at the end it is an environmental wash.

Art Daughtry:  when we discuss this parking, parking was based on our ordinance and guidelines, elaborating on parking needs.  When the initial review was conducted, we found a large contrast between township’s code and how planners and engineer’s determine parking needs.  

Deborah Nielson:  there is a proposal with parking, and with scaled back regulations, there is a parking deficiency, and this is a problem at this time.  Development constraints discussed.

This study is not relative to any site plan pending at the planning board now.  Any site plan filed would be a separate and distinct application that would require extensive review. 

Art Daughtry:  discussed how the committee in prior years reviewed the old Towaco Swim Club and how we can use it?  Thoughts considered were:  Can we make it a parking lot to work out parking deficiencies?  This is something that will be decided further down the road. 

Keith Lockwood, 22 Waughaw Road:  Referred to Pg. 15 of document.  His concern was that Waughaw Road is secondary and Old Lane is in need of correction, his house is at this major bend, and he was curious if eminent domain is being considered for utilizing these lands (plan talks to taking curve out).  Art Daughtry:  no one supports the taking of any property.  There are no plans for this anywhere in the Township.

How would engineering correct this area of curve since his house is almost on curve on Waughaw Road?  Mr. Daughtry indicated the town engineer would look at this and will get answer to you, assuming, though, since there was a large tract opposed this tract that any taking and/or improvement would be along that side.

Hugh Merritt, Environment Commission, Dave Cotter and Michele Caron, Environmental Commission member representation

Mr. Merritt indicated that he wanted the Planning Board to know that the Environmental Commission is looking at the situation, and asked for continued involvement relative to environmental concerns stressing that a final decision is not yet made at this level.

Greg Krisak  - Barney Road

Voiced concerns on traffic along the roadways, asking how you control the speeds, noting specifically the area along Barney Road and Two Bridges, which he classified as a race tract.  How do you deal with these issues?  Asking Planning Board to consider speed bumps to slow down the speeding.   

Deborah Nielson: indicated that the Township Committee held a public hearing earlier this year relative to traffic for Rt. 202 areas and Whitehall Road.  The County was asked to take a second look at some improvements considered along Whitehall Road, but the issues being raised this evening are more relative to additional police enforcement.  Mr. Krisak indicated he has never seen anyone stopped for speeding.  Township Committee representatives indicated they would confer with police chief on this issue.

Kathy Fisher:  Chairperson of Historic Preservation Committee.  Voiced strong opposition to adoption of any master plan stating that the HPRC has not reviewed the document only receiving it this week.  Ladis Karkowsky:  explained that there is an element in the Master plan specifically responding to HPRC elements, and that this is not the ordinance, but a master plan.  Ms. Fisher indicated she felt there were historic dwellings in the area and that some of the streetscape lighting in this proposal is not in line with the type of lighting they would recommend.  Mr. Burgis elaborated about the ordinance and the fact there is already an historic element to the ordinance that must be adhered to.  Ms. Fisher indicated she would want to see how this documents impacts at HPRC level.   

Art Daughtry:  assured Ms. Fisher that there are no plans on demolition of anything in this area.  Ladis Karkowsky:  assured Ms. Fisher that when a developer appears before township, their agency is involved and we work on addressing these concerns.  Mr. Burgis:  indicated that this is not the end of the project.  We are going into this further and will look for further input. 

Jennifer Shenkman – repeated concerns about speeding on Barney Road, noting there are small children, no sidewalks, and there is an issue, adding more traffic.  Ms. Shenkman was advised the Township would address this. 

Philip Berman – Also voiced concerns on speeding in the area, doesn’t appear that there will be any change, and wants to know how this will mitigate and/or affect that?   

Art Daughtry:  Spoke to the extensive studies conducted by the County on Rt. 202 improvements, discussing them and indicating study available at township. 

(Note:  John Rosellini entered)

He summarized that the township did provide a study of all developments to the County.  This plan proposes no head in parking.  Township is continuing and will continue to look at solutions for this area.  Mr. Berman thought just stopping tractor trailers would be a plus from using this area.  Discussion ensued on parking, need for parking to be provided on site, and that the parking demands of the township’s code are restrictive, and what you have is more parking spaces more than what you need since it is a necessary evil.  Gary Lewis:  don’t see that volume of vehicles based on extent of development.  Marie Kull:  compare this to areas that are established.  Art Daughtry:  repeated that the County was asked to consider all of this data. 

Katie Mandelson:  Pomono

NJ has the worst traffic everywhere in state and worst road.  Living east if this area, she noticed during rush hour near Firehouse Road and Whitehall Road, this intersection gets backed up and you have to turn left.  Problem is that the people coming from Lincoln Park are filing up gap, and there is no space for turning.  Recommendation is no ‘right on red’ on corner. Asked Planning Board to consider looking at this.   

Art Daughtry:  repeated that there are detailed discussions on improvements in this area and expect to change the lighting, and expect a different traffic flow with this light.  If it doesn’t work, we will go back to county.  The traffic light proposal at the intersection of Rt. 202 and Park Avenue is fast tracked and could be in place by 2008. 

No Further public comments.

Linda White summarized prior master plan hearings, proposal before Planning Board for master plan this evening, having noticed for it should the Planning Board wish to adopt this element, clarifying that no ordinance is being considered at this time, and that further work will go into this area/document in the future. 

Gary Lewis:  was not here for last master plan and ordinance, and read everything from that period.  The last planning document was a good guide, and he thinks the Burgis document as a planning tool is a good opportunity for a developer to come in and make this real; he is pleased with goals of master plan, pedestrian friendly, traffic calming proposals and moved to adopt master plan   Seconded by: Marie Kull: 

Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, Art Daughtry, Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale – Yes; John Rosellini – no and Leigh Witty  – no

Regular Meeting

Update by Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP – Study of GI auto site –scheduled July 12, 2007

Development of Ordinance Regulating placement of Detention Basins on individual lots – update by Stan Omland, PE

Discussion ensued on a draft ordinance prepared by Mr. Omland dealing with requiring detention basin on individual lots.  General discussion ensued.   Mr. Omland indicated that a good example for the Board to digest would be the GI site that was presented last meeting:  the detention basin for this site would be a five-acre lot.  Stan Omland, PE:  not in favor of a conforming lot and this would only apply to single family and not for commercial/industrial.  In a single-family zone regardless of lot size, one would have to provide for a fee simple lot at minimum or should it be a conforming lot.  Don’t think you should do a conforming lot.  Mr. Omland indicated his memo presented to board speaks to both examples.  His personal belief should be we should have fee simple with some road frontage and vegetation.  What kind of vegetation, what kind of gate system?  What size lot do we want?  Discussion ensued as to how many more detention basins would come in.  John Rosellini: to make this non-conforming piece of property, a developer will tuck this into corner and get most of the remaining property as his use.  Feels it should be a conforming lot.  Deborah Nielson:  talked about this for residential subdivision, thinks it should be same lot size, but not sure if it should meet all of the bulk requires as to lot width, etc. standards. 

Stan Omland, PE:  non-conforming lot but when regional detention comes on board, it won’t happen.  Gary Lewis:  who maintains this area?  Stan Omland, PE:  township and whatever prevailing lot size is, you respond it.  Which way do you want to go?  You can do nothing, leave as is, and the Board is aware the Planning Board has gotten these basins the way they want them and/or you can create an ordinance to get control with minimum lot size and/or whatever standard you desire.  It’s what the Planning Board wants.  John Rosellini:  if we are down that far, let’s leave what is working go on as is.  Stan Omland, PE:  that means you let it be done here at developer’s level?  Deborah Nielson voiced concerns that we should have this better spelled out per Deborah Nielson.  We should discuss this more, perhaps at subcommittee.  This matter was tabled and would be readdressed sometime in August.

Ordinance Amendment:  paver reduction for sidewalks, pool patio’s – Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP – authorized @ 4-26-07 Planning Board meeting –

The ordinance was amended to add stormwater controls and requirement of surface data, and have ordinance require it to break down with individual components that will require a calculation as to the amount of pavers being used.  Mr. Omland elaborated on using the calculations.  Language is clear to allow amenities the 20% credit as long as there is no solid base/concrete, and that stormwater management is required for expansion to ensure that drainage runoff is controlled.  Concerns were raised on building permit process as to when stormwater management techniques are required.  Mrs. White read ordinance on lot grading plan.  Motion to recommend adoption made by:  John Rosellini Seconded by: Deborah Nielson Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, Art Daughtry, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Leigh Witty – Yes, Tony Speciale, Marie Kull – no

Wellhead Ordinance – Report from Environmental Commission

Discussion ensued on enforcement.  Most of the code is written under zoning, so anyone who would be involved in developing in this area would be subject to the zoning codes.  The Board of Health would enforce those provisions under their jurisdiction.  Motion to recommend adoption made by:  John Rosellini; Seconded by: Gary Lewis

Roll call vote: Unanimous

Outdoor Wood-fired Boilers – Memo from Charles Perry

Linda White noted that a letter was received from Environmental chair on this subject. Mr. Daughtry indicated they invited Mr. Perry and Environmental Commission to come back before their level to discuss.  No action at this level. 

Update:  OB1 Zone change

Linda White indicated that she brought back this issue since there were some concerns about other areas in OB1, although not having the ordinance requirements, coming in with redevelopment to allow age restricted use.  The question was raised at Township Committee level as to whether or not we should just change the distinction to OB1A.  Mr. Murphy is looking at this as it relates to spot zoning.  If you do this, you wouldn’t need the condition of highway access/frontage.  If you do this, though, you would require a map amendment and a statement as to consistency with Master Plan.  It was noted this is a litigation and court case matter, and what drove the Township into considering this zone, but the township wants assurances this is only area that can be developed accordingly.  It was noted that technically the Planning Board is able to address if ordinance is consistent with master plan.  We identified it as a conditional use, and if new use, it has to be principal permitted use.  This was carried to the next meeting in July. 





Report on Street Tree Replacement & Sidewalk Heaving Abatement

Mrs. White indicated she put this under correspondence since this was a study commissioned by the Township Committee by Stan Omland, PE.  Mr. Omland discussed his report.   Discussion ensued.  It was decided that it would be best to have some green space between sidewalk and curb with root screens.  There is no good solution.  If you commit to street trees, you move them to interior of lot; you minimize root condition trees.  The Planning Board needs to focus on new subdivisions.   Based on Stan Omland, PE’s recommendation to avoid planting trees in areas with less than 3’ between a sidewalk and bulb or pavement, that in areas with 3’ to 4’ of clear area between the curb and sidewalk, install trees that grow to a mature height of less than 30’, and do not plant shallow rooted trees within 5’ to 6’ of sidewalks, that you move trees inside, and that you should consider leaving a minimum of 2’ of clear area between new sidewalks, and go with root guards, that this may be the only way you can assist in sidewalk heaving.  The Planning Board recommended these policies be put in place.  Motion made by:  John Rosellini.

Seconded by:  Deborah Nielson  Roll call vote: unanimous   Discussion ensued as to where to locate and install root screens and the development of design standards.  Placement should be on the inside of driveway on edge of ROW with root screen so species don’t die.  Art Daughtry:  from center of caliber of any tree to property owner’s edge gives you 5’ of grass.  Stan Omland, PE concurred.  


Minutes of 6-14-07 - Roll call vote: John Rosellini, Marie Kull, Russ Lipari, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty, Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Larry Hines, Deborah Nielson   

Motion made by: John Rosellini

Seconded by: Deborah Nielson

Roll call vote: unanimous


Bricker & Associates – Trust for: $600

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Litigation for: $31.25, $62.50

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $60, $30, $30, $390, $120, $1,350, $30, $390

Motion made by: John Rosellini

Seconded by: Marie Kull

Roll call vote:  unanimous



 (Note:  the Board moved to public session and returned after planning business to the following agenda order) 



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 & 5-24-07 – 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: 7/12/07

Carried w/notice to: July 12, 2007 as requested by applicant

Notice extended to 7-12-07

Motion made by: Marie Kull

Seconded by: Tony Speciale 

Roll call vote: unanimous

Note:  Board professionals sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq. 

PMS/C 07-03 – SUPPA RESTAURANT – Minor Site plan/variances for parking to allow 4,566 pf of existing space to use for storage, retail sales, offices and a banquet hall to existing 3,619 sq. ft. restaurant use – Notice Acceptable & Carried from 5-24-07 Eligible voters:  Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines (Art Daughtry, John Rosellini & Russ Lipari must certify to missed meeting of 5-24-07)                                     ACT BY:    8/4/07

Note:  Art Daughtry  and John Rosellini certified to missed meeting and presented certification accordingly

Present:  Jack Desch, traffic engineer - sworn

Reviewed the traffic report released by Mr. Desch.  Considered the existing utilizing on this site.  Existing uses discussed.   Vacancy will be a use not in line with banquet use.  According to ordinances, parking spaces required on site is 84 and w/valet, reflected 100 spaces, deficiencies of 163 spaces per parking ordinance.  Looking at spaces on table one on left corner, 157 spaces would be required for 3 existing uses.  Performed utilization spaces, with owner counting vehicles on site.  Found that most happened on a Saturday evening.  Monday thru Friday/Sat beginning at 6 and going thru to 10; fitness center indicates more spaces needed in morning peak hour as day continues.  Rather than coming back, he will seek retail users for only during off peak hours.  Based on analysis, the total spaces proposed is 84, total used will be 80 on Friday evening after Suppa banquet and with valet have 100, and analysis shows that because able to use parking lot different hours of days, the parking will not be exceeded.  Considered methodology of valet parking.  Understood board had problem with circulation and backup of traffic onto Changebridge road.  Site engineer and Mr. Desch looked at valet parking:  enter from Bloomfield Ave and direct people to valet along the Rt. 46 corridor; roadway immediately in front of building will maintain direction to west and another sign as they come to rt. 46, will make a left, and as vehicles continue past this area, this will be the flow on site.  Anyone entering off Changebridge will be brought to one of these closer spots and/or will be queued down further in lot area.  This is only during valet.  All other times, the valet service/amenities is removed.

Marking off handicap spaces discussed:  there are handicap in front, still valet them, but will park cars in that space.  Also handicap space in upper area, and this would be for more wheelbases bound. 

Mr. Schepis:  conducted a traffic count on Monday, Friday and Sat.  Monday thru Thursday is typical with Friday higher, and Saturday is a busy day all day long for other uses.  32 spaces for banquet use is based on ordinance.  There would be 72 additional seats, and this is 1 parking space for two people.  Do you consider he 32 that is allocated, is this conservative?  Mr. Desch:  it is ordinance number. 

Mr. Schepis:  will there be sufficient on site parking?  Mr. Desch:  yes, all uses should be able to be accommodated.  Vacant space, which requires 41 spaces, will overload if it is at same hours of operation.  75 of 100 spaces are occupied with no spaces given to vacant spaces.  Peak hours and parking discussed. 

Stan Omland, PE:  how does board administrate when valet is necessary?  During week, these facilities are not provided.  The owner of banquet knows when there will be parties and will then schedule use of valet.   Brownstone has a short area where people have to get rid of car and are sometimes out on street, and this is a larger facility, but the way it works, you go in and park your car.  It is owner driven.  Stan Omland, PE:  what mechanism brings it back into board?  Administered by police, zoning officer, and Planning Board would ask for maintaining jurisdiction.

Vacant space:  must pass this board, and demonstrate that this board is concerned, and that there be no new tenants until a new tenant is considered.  No basis for making a judgment for sufficient parking.  Troubled to consider a tenant without having this operation fully functional.

Mr. Schepis: suggested that prior to any occupant, entire facility must be up and running for minimum of 60 days before tenancy is filed.  Mr. Parkins agreed.  This stipulation would run when all operations are active, especially the gym use that has not opened yet. 

Handicap spaces and lower parking lot with 4 left for handicapped plaques and upper lot that has 2, and is this the right distribution?  Discussed location of ADA parking spaces.  Move some of these spaces.  Put one above near dry cleaners – 3 up and 3 down.

Mr. Burgis:  analysis:  discounted intensity of use in gyms in afternoon, although his opinion is that this type of activity is high after work and he feels this is a peak time noting he has seen this type of parking lot packed after work.  You add an additional 20 or more to mix, how does this alter solution?  Table reviewed, and applicant feels that there is more than adequate numbers at this time discussing how many can come to site, noting they can get to 100 without having a problem.

At peak time of restaurant, how many vehicles will be coming into site?  The entire banquet facility will be rented out for single not multiple parties.  Adding 32 vehicles to this mix with two valets working, it can be done.  Feels they can accommodate 20 cars in as little as 15 minutes.

The Planning Board approved One Human Performance and the Dance Studio to operate out of this site also.  Mr. Desch indicated all of the numbers on the top 3 rows are all his counts.  He indicated that these exact same numbers of cars were there for three days.  Concerns voiced by John Rosellini on enforcement.  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  explained how this can be done by extending powers to the municipal engineer who is presented with this plan who then has authority to stop violation immediately if parking problem exists.   Stan Omland, PE:  the only other solution is ‘no stopping, standing, etc’ ordinance.  Applicant indicated that closing the ala Carte section could be done immediately.  Indicated he does not feel there is a problem.

General discussion ensued on the Winebow resolution that provided wording to make applicant reappear before Planning Board:  question is, should we do this here with this operator?  During original application, applicant testified, per Mr. Schepis, that he agreed there would be no dropping off on Changebridge Road, and there hasn’t been a problem in this area.  Applicant will agree to the types of conditions being discussed this evening.  In event that there is a post development condition, it would require reconsideration and/or cessation of use.  Consent to cessation of use should there be evidence of use problems, and that would be for use of the banquet room activity. 

Tract 4

Mr. Suppa agreed to isolate the banquet room activities if a parking problem occurred when all activities are in full force and affect.  Gary Lewis:  having been a valet, concerned about people coming in upper entrance to avoid valet.  Mr. Desch:  It doesn’t avoid it.  People coming in upper entrance, may use space, but their valet is going to come thru.  Discussion ensued.  Valet sets up for dinner crowd, any cars will find seats, and valet tends to keep spaces for valet.  What is impact if this section is barricaded in upper parking lot to use for valet? 

Mr. Schepis:  Dance studio won’t be able to use parking and can’t block the upper park; it is going to be clear that this needs to be open.

Deborah Nielson:  when banquet is in use, is there is an option on this.  Is valet is mandatory.    No, indicated by applicant.  If you take away all the other uses, and you do the parking calculations according to our ordinance, you needs 113 spaces just for Suppa:  are our ordinances with respect to restaurants, are they consistent with other standards?  Stan Omland, PE:  1 space per 45 sq. ft.  This is very high.  1 for 2/3 seats or 65 sq. ft is general codes for this type of use.  Our ordinance is stringent.  Deborah Nielson:  voiced concerns that this site is deficient by our code by 50%, are still deficient by other codes, and we still need to discuss the retail component.

Concerned with vacant space and the tenant that may occupy this site. Deborah Nielson:  we should re-evaluate our ordinances, but have a large problem with a deviation from parking spaces under code.  Milan was an existing condition, as well as other restaurants, but this is an expansion.  The applicant testified that if restaurant area fills up, they would use banquet room as restaurant area.  Mr. Schepis indicated Mr. Suppa agreed to seat no more than 8 people at a time if this occurs in banquet room. 

John Rosellini: concerns on enforcement.  Who is going to enforce it?  Marie Kull:  had this problem with other restaurants, and we found a way to address this.  If this is the case, and they are presenting testimony indicating they had no problem with parking, then we should follow thru with whatever enforcement we consider.  Stan Omland, PE: with this use, they have increased parking variances on site.  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  if you are not persuaded, you cannot handle testimony and/or you feel they didn’t give proper proofs, then variance can’t be considered.  John Rosellini:  problem is not now but when it is totally occupied.  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  you can give resolution to take aggressive action, but ultimately it doesn’t work, the applicant is clearly indicating and testifying that they will walk away from the variance.  Mr. Schepis:  would agree also that there is no liquor license unless further agreed by this board; there would be no tenant until full occupancy for at least 60 days and applicant would have to justify adequate parking.  Landlord owner Kim Parkins agrees to this condition that in the event it is determined after use commences that it doesn’t work and is a shortage and there is a safety concern, township can direct operation cease and require applicant to reappear before the board. 

Art Daughtry:  the third condition:  the whole operation will ‘cease’ operations.  If Planning Board approves variance, and it is determined it is violation, board has authority to request cessation of banquet room operation.  Deborah Nielson:  they are not going to cease this operation.  The carry out operation is a whole segment that will be a burden, and doesn’t feel 60 days is enough to assess this situation, also noting the peaks of uses, and the lack of the fitness center operating.  Discussion ensued. 

John Rosellini:  This use also includes a kitchen expansion?  What about our shared parking ordinance?  Mr. Schepis:  worked in Montville Inn, but doesn’t work here.

Tony Speciale:  doesn’t feel one applicant should have a special type of resolution that will close him and put him out of business.  Doesn’t feel the Chamber would like this type of finding.  Feeling is: If he does something wrong, and then deal with that issue at that time, but not in this manner. 

Deborah Nielson:  what we have tried to do is contain problems.  Tony Speciale:  don’t think this part of site review should be that stringent. 

Anthony Friese, Esq. for objector

Talked about conditional use approval.  This is an application for a variance.  They don’t meet the proofs.  They are 150 spaces in variance.  It is 150% in variance.  The only benefit here is the benefit for the applicant. 

Applicant previously testified that he would use the banquet space if he had an overage.  Became aware of this when he received Mr. Burgis letter.  If this is case, both Suppa’s and banquet hall could be filled.  They may not have a banquet use; it may be a restaurant then.  If this takes place, how does he know when to call in valet?  If that takes off, he always has the banquet use.  Were you aware that when granting this application for anytime fitness that any tenant would be in jeopardy for parking needs, especially if use involves a larger parking demand like restaurant use.  What of vacant space?  He refers to:  May 3rd, 2007 page 4 of Burgis report.

Mr. Desch: feels applicant can address new tenant since Planning Board revisits it when new tenants come in.  Have high demands for parking.  Whoever heard of a cleaner having a need for a lot of spaces, reviewing code requirements for a cleaner? 

Based on what has been heard and what this board rules on, granting this site a variance has no precedence for it.  Even if you gave some spaces, maybe it is a little high, even on reasonable ordinance, but way beyond number, and sees no public good or good for public properties.  Only advancement belongs of that of the applicant and anytime this board has to consider and approve in a resolution that builds in auto revocation, this should tell you that you couldn’t grant this variance.

Michael Carroll, Esq.:  based on statement and public good, this is a C2?  Mr. Schepis:  it is C1 and C2. 

Applicant agreed to remove the one sign from the canopy relieving variance.  Architectural plans will be supplied.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  is troubled by not having formal testimony on formal and negative testimony.  Mr. Omland:  what is status of outstanding items from prior approval? 

Mr. Parkins:  he had trouble getting contractors to install lights, and additional landscaping will be finished in immediate future.  Mr. Rosellini asked about eliminating garage door on Changebridge as part of this application.  Owner concurred to remove these doors. 

Michael Carroll, Esq.:  issue is whether or not you have testimony, and is it a hardship.  Mr. Schepis indicated C1 and gave you his reasons.  Question is:  do you believe you can grant variance without impact to master plan, and by granting relief do you create problems?  Board polled:  Leigh Witty, Tony Speciale, John Rosellini, and Marie Kull agreeable to documents/site plan.  Gary Lewis: feels it could work, but also think that a very suitable and lengthy period of observation will be necessary, as there are so many unknowns, as to find rationale to find that valet is required for whatever nights and has to be set and finds that it is not required and come back to the Planning Board that it is not required; Deborah Nielson:  want to hear positive/negative criteria – concerns with parking and not sure, but want Suppa’s to do well, just don’t want to have repeat of the other issues we have with other restaurants, but concerned once approval is granted, doesn’t feel it is practical to shut down and close shop after approval is granted since approvals go with land.

Art Daughtry:  believe professionals advised that this is deficient by 40 spaces which does take into consider the vacant space, and is only in favor if conditions as represented are adhered and agreed to.  John Rosellini: suggestion that for the first 6 months on every Friday/Saturday night, this be monitored, and suggested that valet be required for Friday and Saturday for valet, and if it is found not to be needed, to come back to board for amendment/relief from this condition.  Also that there be no new tenant for the six months that all uses are operating. 

Mr. Schepis summarized:  all signs are conforming and asked for valet directional signage be considered as a temporary sign, agreed to one sign on canopy; only temporary sign is valet

As to concern for standing in rain, applicant agreed to install a canopy but only in inclement weather conditions; Elimination of one sign is fine; directional signs are ok; sign size is ok.  Valet signs appropriate and are only up in Friday and sat?  Applicant/site requires additional landscaping on Rt. 46; Old Bloomfield Avenue; lighting still out but bonded.  Compliance with all agency findings and especially that of fire prevention bureau relative to stacking being located away from building; and applicant agreed to comply with all agency findings.  Applicant also agreed to cease banquet facilities as testified to. 

Deborah Nielson concerns voiced on burden of proof and that responsibility is the applicant’s, and ordinances are here to protect this community since approvals run with land.  Doesn’t have a problem that this parking will prevail and proofs will succeed, and if he accepts this and we created a nightmare situation, we have to deal with it, and to not accept this is ridiculous and shouldn’t refuse it.  Art Daughtry indicated our professionals advised us this site would be in variance in reality by 40 spaces.  That Mr. Schepis offered up the stipulation of closing if parking is a problem, and Ladis Karkowsky agreed also confidant that applicant will keep business running smoothly with parking addressed hearing board’s concerns.  Applicant agreed to comply with all testimony and all agency findings

Again, stipulated that Pop tent canopy only used in inclement weather and color would be same color as canopy.

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  signage acceptable, and applicant indicated they would meet landscaping, feels issues raised on circulation have been addressed; applicant offered comments on magnitude of parking deficiency and standard planning design which are deficient and would ask applicant to get testimony from a planner on benefits.

Stan Omland, PE:  conditions is limiting number of seats to 69 in restaurant and 72 in banquet; applicant must also comply with Stan Omland, PE prior engineering report and this report recently issued to comply with his outstanding items, 1-2-3 and 5; affidavit of compliance issued, lighting will be up within 90 days; this request is for amended site plan and applicant will comply with condition no. 5 with sight easement and will not have any visual impact in sight triangle since nothing will be located in sight triangle.

Mr. Burgis:  prefers to have someone to testify on these items so someone can cross-examine.  Mr. Schepis is offering positive/negative criteria but not open to cross exam.

Applicant agreed to incorporate landscaping and light fixtures. Mr. Schepis indicated there is not a legal requirement to have a planner, and Planning Board can make this decision without one. 

Mr. Friese – no further comments

Motion made by:  John Rosellini, seconded by Gary Lewis to close public hearing

Roll call vote: unanimous

Linda White asked if we were considering a deed notification.  Discussion ensued.  Mr. Schepis indicated he could record the resolution if board requires.

Mr. Lewis indicated that the applicant should, after 6 months of the entire site operating, either continue to provide valet, etc., or come back to the Planning Board if you need amendment of this stipulation.  Census of board:  no need to record resolution.

Motion by Tony Speciale, Seconded by: Marie Kull to grant site plan amendment approval with testimony and all conditions stipulated, agency findings, 60 day working period, cessation agreements as prepared by Michael Carroll, Esq., normal site plan conditions, all prior approval conditions, compliance with agency and professional reports issued, 90 days for all site improvements to be finalized from adoption of resolution.  Roll call vote: Art Daughtry  - no based on lack of planner to support proofs per Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP input and Deborah Nielson – no – feels a planner should provide proofs; Ladis Karkowsky, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull, Gary Lewis- would prefer a planner for justifying C1 and C2, but feels though resolution has enough ammunition – parking standards has a large difference; building is difficult and not sure there is a wide array of uses that might succeed here, applicant took on a big chunk of this building – votes yes since he feels there is enough support and proofs, John Rosellini agrees with statements offered by Gary Lewis and votes yes – action carried

John Rosellini asked if we could develop a draft resolution.  Michael Carroll, Esq. indicated action is taken this evening. 

NEW BUSINESS                                                                 

PMS06-23 WOODMONT PROPERTIES – 115 Main Rd. - B: 51, L: 28 – minor site plan with variances parking lot expansion – Notice Acceptable                               ACT BY: 8-29-07

Rescheduled first to July 26th Planning Board agenda in a motion made by:  Marie Kull, Seconded by: Gary Lewis


PMN07-01 WILLIAM IELLIMO – 30 Changebridge Rd. – B: 82. Lot: 8.01 – Two minor subdivision w/variances                                                                  ACT BY:  8-29-07

Rescheduled to:  July 26, 2007 due to lack of notice by applicant



Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion by Art Daughtry, Seconded by: Marie Kull

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White


With explanation

With explanation

With explanation

Must certify to 4-26-07

Certified to 4-26-07

Must certify to 4-26-07


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack