MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
6:30 PM Special
7:30 Regular Meeting
Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF JUNE 28,
Mr. Rosellini – entrance noted Mr. Karkowsky -
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
Stan Omland, PE
Michael Carroll, Esq.
Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
discussion held at end of meeting – see Tract 4)
Review of Industrial Zone/Retail Component:
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.
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
6:30 PM – Towaco Center & Master Plan Discussions –
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, Art
Daughtry, Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale – Yes; John Rosellini – no and Leigh
Witty – no
Update by Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP – Study of GI auto
site –scheduled July 12, 2007
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.
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
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.
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
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
Seconded by: Deborah
Roll call vote:
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
Seconded by: Marie
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:
Seconded by: Tony
Roll call vote:
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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
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.
PROPERTIES – 115 Main Rd. - B: 51, L: 28 – minor site plan with variances
parking lot expansion – Notice Acceptable ACT
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:
July 26, 2007 due to lack of notice by applicant
Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion by Art Daughtry,
Seconded by: Marie Kull
Linda M. White