PB Minutes 7-12-07 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Mr. Rosellini – present                         Mr. Karkowsky - present

Ms. Kull - absent                         Mr. Daughtry - present

Ms. Nielson - present                         Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari - present                         Mr. Lewis - absent

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

Mr. Witty (alt#2) absent

Also Present:   Stan Omland, PE

                        Michael Carroll, Esq.

                        Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP









Linda White indicated that at the last Planning Board meeting we discussed the possibility of scheduling a subcommittee meeting with the owners of Old Towne Properties to review the master plan adopted and their property development.  Mr. Daughtry indicated he did reach out to one of the owners regarding meeting and reviewing the parking requirements, expressing a desire to possibly work with some of the parking issues the redevelopment of this site proposes.  He felt that of all the properties impacted by the Towaco Center Master Plan, this strip mall has more of a benefit to the citizens of the area and revitalizing this area vs vacant land development, which has wetland issues, is a sound approach since we are actively promoting cleaning up this area.  The Township may have opportunities present as to lands they own that may help in addressing parking requirements and this should be looked at and something that a Planning Board subcommittee and/or with Township Committee involvement.  Ladis Karkowsky:  have no problem with subcommittee.  John Rosellini: discussed the township’s prior purchase of swim club. 

Linda White asked if there were any problems with having this type of informal subcommittee meeting in view of pending Board of Adjustment application.  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  not from his perspective, but Board of Adjustment counsel should be contacted. Linda White indicated she conferred with Mr. Ackerman.  Mr. Carroll sees no problem with an informal meeting.  Secretary set subcommittee meeting for July 26th @ 8:30AM and will provide Sunshine Notice. 

Note:  Deborah Nielson entered


Update by Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP – Study of GI auto site

Mr. Burgis summarized his report presented to the Board as it relates to preliminary determinations as to uses.  There are two separate properties involved, explaining locations.  This is important since they are asking to vacate 57,000 sq. ft. of unimproved Bloomfield Avenue incorporating this into the overall tract.

The environmental features of site discussed.  What you find after analysis, are 20 acres of upland that is about 54% of the site that can be developed.  Looked at proposed use as well as number of alternative uses.

He indicated he:

Looked at office use:  400,000 sq. ft. proposal;

Conventional Retail:  300,000 sq. ft. proposal;

Big Box:  Assumed design by petitioner, which is 215,000 sq. ft. proposed;

Mixed Use:  Considered retail & hotel as one alternative, selecting this because of the character of the surrounding land use since he was looking for balance of impact, and felt retail and hotel was a good balance in this area;

Looked at age restricted housing, and;

Looked at light industry, which is partially zoned for this (16 acres zoned) and,

He indicated he:

Looked at indices and impacts by the uses discussed above.  Report doesn’t recommend a particular use, but he finds:

In terms of office uses:  would be more jobs on site and would address economic development and this type of use represents most significant benefit in this regard.  But this use also represents the most significant impact on AM/PM traffic and police and fire service calls.  The negative side represents the larger impact on COAH obligations under this use.  More significant is that there is a 20% vacancy rate in community for this type of use.

Conventional land use development with retail discussed.  This use also has a lot of traffic and larger number of police and service calls.  He notes, though, that these service calls are light in nature:  i.e. locked keys in cars, etc.

Big Box retail:  The plus on this use is it has the least AM/PM peak hours on traffic in surrounding area and smallest number on COAH formula.  You need more parking for this type of use so more parking needs is higher, but has a smaller retail footprint.  Negative side:  fewest employment opportunities and has a significant police call for same reasons above stated.

Hotel is neither best nor worst with retail but questions whether hotel development is needed in the county. 

Light industrial: this use is a plus for traffic but truck traffic would exist, but given direction in Montville, don’t see this as being good for light industrial use in this given area.

He reviewed Master Plans and re-examination reports and all seem to indicate that we not encourage additional attached residential developments in view of housing stock in this area, and there was enough of this.  Even with this, looked and clearly in terms of traffic.   Has a COAH impact, but can impose this on site. 

Aged restricted housing:  COAH has cap and credit; this would impose an adverse affect to meet on site obligation.  Non-age:  has a school impact.  Looked at similar projects with 400 generated 50, would be more under age of 5, some older and some going to parochial schools.

Looked at tax rate in communities:  calculated with 50-school children, you would end up with net revenue surplus, but nowhere close to age restricted housing.

Given physical dimensions and character, and adjoining properties, that whatever occurs, you should give thought to giving tail off northeaster site and incorporate this as open space for community to provide open space along lengthy of Passaic river continuous, and talk about walk paths to make it accessible.

Ensure open space feature along Maple Ave ROW to ensure a buffer area in this site regardless of development.  

One additional study would be the financial impact assessment of some of these uses and felt there would be extensive time and cost involved to do this financial study, assuming that based on tonight’s discussion would shake out, and then talk about development of ordinances with limited options of uses being considered.

Art Daughtry:  one item directed towards documentation/testimony from previous people on site regarding the statement on page 7 with principal site access on Rt. 46 with second access on Bloomfield Avenue.   Concern would be regardless of use, Old Bloomfield Avenue would be taking quite a bit of traffic and looking at Saturday retail use, anywhere from 419 or 1140 based on retail/conventional on Saturday with majority going eastbound on Rt. 46 to say “Lowe’s” would be using Old Bloomfield Avenue since the only access would be prior and then going down Old Bloomfield to get to this site.

Mr. Burgis:  section is summary of what concept plan shows.  Art Daughtry:  when reading this, concerns are all relative to an access.  Mr. Burgis:  this is only conceptual and nothing is cast in stone.  Art Daughtry:  understand that this is based on what we heard, but not a secondary road.  There may be more traffic coming from West, but could see up to 700 cars on Old Bloomfield on Bloomfield Avenue.

John Rosellini:  talked about jug handle near Home Depot with DOT involvement.  Art Daughtry:  people going westbound on Rt. 46 with what Boswell proposed and stays in agreement with, people would not use Old Bloomfield.  Deborah Nielson:  this should be clarified.

John Rosellini:  what are we doing though, are we doing rezoning or considering an application.  Can you do rezoning subject to a Rt. 46 access?  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  not a spot zoning question but not sure you can make it a rezoning.  Discussion ensued.  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  cannot apply own standards; can only do rezoning.

Stan Omland, PE:  rezoning is discretionary and must have access issues addressed.  You looked at Home Depot and got the access.  You need to have satisfactory access.  This can be sought from DOT but you won’t get approval from them but you can get far enough along so you can get what you want.  His concern is the existing use allows industrial development. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  this is a study and more input will be needed.

Art Daughtry:  also looking at property across the street from this property:  Kevor Konner/Hertz Penske site, and looking at this area and Rt. 46 area, now is the time to look at traffic flows into the other sites.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  looking at carry capacity of land and road network.  It would not be inappropriate to have a traffic consultant look at this in order to get a better sense of distribution of traffic and what roadway can handle.  Haven’t seen traffic counts support. 

Stan Omland, PE:  traffic study would be required, and DOT when considering a major access perform a major review and perhaps with these properties there would be off-site improvement funds both east and west.  DOT will only consider what is before them, and if this went to DOT, they would consider east and west, but if the township participates, in view of Kevor Konner, perhaps we can have the entire area reviewed.  Mr. Daughtry indicated that we did tell Kevor Konner to get us a plan so we can understand impact, and the sooner they come in, the sooner we can go forward.  

John Rosellini:  are we rezoning and/or reviewing a site plan?

Stan Omland, PE:  problem is the applicant doesn’t know what to talk to DOT about since each use creates different traffic patterns.  If Planning Board gives a nod to a particular use, then an applicant can go to DOT and look at access, modification of signals, but a property owner needs direction.  There are no guarantees until DOT is filed.  They can file for a DOT without our input.   

Stan Omland, PE:  discussion ensued about how to deal with ensuring that there is an access from Rt. 46. Discussion involved:  perhaps indicate emergency access must be provided, and no more than x-trips can go on local roads.  John Rosellini:  this is same argument that was presented with Home Depot:  issues like traffic and trip generation, impact to township, ratables.  Look at this use area now.  At this hearing, it was the concerns voiced by residents about Rt. 46 and Hook Mountain intersection.  If you review minutes, you will find this is the same issue.  But agreed that we don’t want Montville to wind up like Riverdale.  In his opinion, two issues:  rezoning, but with rezoning must come an ordinance that controls access to a site; and then look at uses, and control your streetscape and put in those controls of what Montville desires. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  feels you can identify this type of an ordinance in a rationale form putting in this DOP access type of unique condition, feeling you can survive a legal challenge with that type of ordinance.  Michael Carroll, Esq.: discussed what is pending before the board based on question asked by Mr. Rosellini on whether we are looking at rezoning or a site plan.  He explained that if governing body rezones for a particular use, then that use becomes a permitted use, and the kind of discussions you are having are related to a particular application, and thinks it would be appropriate to consider whatever use considered be conditioned upon DOT approval on Rt. 46.   Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  have seen these types of uses with regulatory supplemental regulations stay with Planning Board.  John Rosellini:  don’t want to see Board of Adjustment in a situation like this. 

Deborah Nielson:  we will want to control access to the site.  Art Daughtry:  this application may never come back to Planning Board depending on how we treat it.  We don’t want to see something like that happen.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  in Mahwah, they permit retail development, but they also put gas station in same zone, and increased the requirement for this use. There is supplemental information for specific uses.

John Rosellini:  there is a need to amendment the master Plan.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP: yes

Linda White:  can you do DA?  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  no, it is rezoning.

Deborah Nielson:  ratables and the amount of monies from uses are of interest.  Refer to question about table 4 that gives different square footage.  Can you explain how these numbers were arrived at? 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  reviewed how he calculated numbers:  Deborah Nielson:  Zone doesn’t allow residential, you indicated the 400 units, we never agreed on a density, and this was a multistory unit.  Not sure how high hotel would be and/or retail.  Is this two-story vs 4 story?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  Office is two stories.  Looked at office zone to see what was conventional.  It applies to conventional parking requirements.  Retail development:  he used coverage factors for commercial zones that was at one story; same for the retail big box.  Hotel was 3 stories and retail was one story.  No underground parking proposed.  Retail was surrounding hotel use.  Light industrial was done by straight one story coverage.  Residential prior plan used.  Light industry and self-storage use discussed.  This light industry is light manufacturing and does not include a large warehousing and/or self-storage.  Did not contemplate self-storage, and felt some light warehousing, but went with worst-case scenario.  Self-storage generates little traffic.

Deborah Nielson:  discussed housing development and Township Committee felt this was a decent use long term given various other options.  Noted in report that the report appears to discourage housing, and Mr. Boswell said that age restricted housing market was ‘dead’ and that developers all disappeared.  Will this trend circle around?  If population show a swell and/or need for this type of housing, should we consider?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP: concern for age restricted housing is that you look 15 years down the road, there is a sharp drop in age group, and the problem will be that when those are ready to sell, there will be no market for this.  A lot of planners are concerned there will be a groundswell to remove that type of restriction.  In Montville, there seems to be a need for aged restricted housing but doesn’t know how the market is for this area.  Mrs. Nielson:  keeps hearing from speculating, that this is still a viable market in Montville.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  not hearing as it relates to Montville, but generally in private side of business, more developers tend to be shying away in Morris County.

On Page 14 and 15, report speaks to square footage of office/employees?  Are there a base number of employees?  Is there a scale?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  this is a straight ratio. 

Stan Omland, PE:  His experiences indicate there are aged restricted requests in Morris County, and there is a cloud over on that issue.  His recommendation is that Mr. Burgis suggested that two studies be made, that the board tell developer that the township wants this access with DOT.  That we want to be involved in it, and then we will advance rezoning, if DOT access is received.  Or you do it nothing, which means that the current zoning remains the same as it is, and a developer can come in under the current ordinances, which will have traffic issues.  You need to address access in an ordinance somehow today to make sure you deal with the concerns being raised this evening.  Either rezone with controls or get something in place to mandate that they get to Rt. 46.  To have a big industrial user with a permitted use, you should look at this area since you don’t want to have adverse traffic impact to the surrounding neighborhood.

Ladis Karkowsky:  we need to rezone it since this will be impetus to clean up this whole area.

Russ Lipari:  On chart and numbers reflected, are they maximum numbers?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  these are maximum numbers.  Russ Lipari:  looked at non-age restricted and aged restriction, mentioned you had a certain dollar figure of close to ½ M for children with a slight gain to Township. 

Opened to public….

Art Webber:  Bloomfield Avenue should be emergency access only.  Wondering if the planning process should reach out to community to see what there concerns are, what their problems are, and any rezoning should be discussed with residents.  Objective should be not to include more traffic to Bloomfield Avenue, and exit should be down near bridge. Provisions should be made to block off Maple Avenue so traffic doesn’t cut thru.

Mr. Webber indicated most people aren’t concerns about Kevor Konner but are concerned about junkyard that is in their back yard.   Ladis Karkowsky:  we are also concentrating looking at Kevor Konner site. John Rosellini reminded Mr. Webber about the concerns encountered by the residents on this side of highway when Apple Container existed, so we need to look at this corridor.  Mrs. White indicated notice was provided to residents within 200’ of GI and a list of interested residents for GI hearing, and that night these residents were advised this hearing was carried to tonight’s meeting. 

Susan Jeniec: Harold Terrace  - think Lowe’s is a great asset, does own repairs, etc., and would like one in her backyard. 

Deborah Nielson:  indicated that we will continue to keep public informed and that there will be other hearings on this matter, and we will more notices out. 

John Rosellini:  asked Mr. Burgis if there is a different retail zone and a big box zone?  Mr. Burgis indicated retail zones allows big box. 

Tract 2

Are there some uses that we don’t want?  Deborah Nielson:  offices aren’t a problem.  Ladis Karkowsky:  concerned with vacancy rate in Morris County. 

Ladis Karkowsky: you have to look at big box/retail?  John Rosellini:  should we look at some type of ordinances for retail?  Request a traffic study to see how to control use on site.  Russ Lipari:  would it help if people that are going to develop Kevor site know we are entertaining traffic study and ask them to submit something.  Stan Omland, PE:  indicated that he has been in conversations with the Kevor Konner professionals after the subcommittee meeting.   

Art Daughtry: will the State get involved in this.  Linda White summarized past involvement as it relates to Home Depot site.  John Rosellini:  there were two phases involved in State plan, but they are looking for whomever came into site to pick up the old plans that were involved.  Art Daughtry:  we have to be concerned with Konner site, and we should look at this.

Stan Omland, PE:  original state plan had a road that came thru GI auto site, and took the new office building area.  Suggestion that we engage them before and without applicant is something that we can pursue, but success rate not good.   Deborah Nielson:  send a memo to Township Committee to check with State DOT.  We need township to petition for a study.

Give some direction to Mr. Burgis:  retail is a potential use/hotel/ but we need to see ordinances that would be crafted.  Residential should be off per John Rosellini.  Deborah Nielson:  age restricted also?  What uses supports improvements to Rt. 46?  Petitioner came to Township Committee, with tax of 2M for 400 units.  Don’t feel these other uses would generate that type of revenue.  Stan Omland, PE:  don’t know about use justifying improvements along Rt. 46, but the interest is what type of uses you can get on this property.  Rezoning is a lot of trust involved.

Motion made by:  John Rosellini to send a memo to Township Committee on seeking a Rt. 46 study in this area.  Seconded by: Larry Hines   Roll call vote: unanimous

Art Daughtry:  eliminated residential components, light industrial status quo, down to retail/conventional/retail big box subject to Rt. 46 direct access. 

Deborah Nielson:  non-aged restricted, light industry, no problem with self-storage but other light industrial; not in favor of manufacturing. Would be in favor of some height in this area if this would limit traffic and/or open up possibility for development of an upscale hotel mixed-use retail/banquet facility.  Voiced concerns with big box.  Feels you can eliminate office

Russ Lipari:  go along with Art Daughtry:  eliminate residential; light industry should be addressed; right now based on this report, retail conventional/retail big box appears the best.

John Visco:  feels we should narrow down to retail/hotel/retail/big box

Larry Hines:  directional purposes; office/residential and non-age should be eliminated

John Rosellini:  agree with Art Daughtry  - conventional retail/big box, realizing we were originally against big box but this study shows we should logically look at this.

Mr. Webber:  voiced concerns with Planning Board position expressing his unhappiness.

Ladis Karkowsky:  explained this is just a beginning point, that this is a study to direct planner to look at these uses more.  Right now the feeling of the board is towards retail and we will continue to take comments from residents.

John Rosellini:  clearly it would have to be retail with working on a Rt. 46 access?  Linda White:  do we need traffic impact statements now?

Russ Lipari:  indicated that he understands Mr. Burgis did not do an economic review?  Would he need additional funds for this, acknowledging that we narrowed down the uses to three retail alternatives?  Mr. Burgis indicated he could develop these ordinances as well as provide fiscal intensity.  Doesn’t think this will be a problem.  Clarifying he would be studying:  Retail conventional/big box/self-storage/hotel use.  Self-storage may be appropriate for a portion of site, and could incorporate it in zoning. 

Ms. Nielson asked about notice and future hearings and whether or not we should extend the notice areas along Old Bloomfield Avenue.  Will put a message on Montville Messenger and will get on website.  Art Daughtry:  said he would try and poll Township Committee on contacting state for DOT study. 

Timeframe per Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  first meeting in September.  Mrs. White will provide postcard notices, message in Montville Messenger (if date is set) and website notice.

Streetscape  - update – review of policies – Linda White summarized concerns raised by Mr. Barile on the streetscape lighting, mentioned costs, liability and that JCP&L will not adopt/repair and/or replace any of these fixtures.  This ordinance was drafted based on what was supposed to be preference of Planning Board.  You need to discuss this.  Is it going to cost too much?  The policy memo and standards have been developed by what the Planning Board wanted.  He notes he has never been comfortable with this concept, and has been asking for decisions from the Planning Board on the various policies, which are the same ones Mr. Barile noted. 

John Rosellini:  look at Morristown, etc. with their decorative lights.  Is JCP&L not adopting any of these lights?  These lights are standard lights.  Art Daughtry:  we get charged because of these lights, and looking into how much, to contact county and much more elaborate than what.  County supports this position but won’t take responsibility and liability.  Would like the County to do negotiations with JCP&L.  Stan Omland, PE:  request to hear from the Planning Board on all of the issues.  Ask Stan Omland, PE to participate in this discussion with Mr. Barile, and can speak to other townships.  Stan Omland, PE:  was told by an applicant, all lights in the resident frontage are going to be municipality owned.  All of these streetscape lights have indicated that they have to go on property owner, will install, pay and maintain.  Stan Omland, PE:  was told township would do it.  Inside ROW and Montville is paying for it.  Art Daughtry:  policy is residential streets and Barile prepares in front of house, we are paying for electric, inside ROW.  Commercial property and Board of Adjustment, applicant is telling you will install streetscape on property, paying for electric and maintaining them.  Stan Omland, PE:  told by applicant, we install them in ROW and Township pays for maintenance.  Property owner seeking relief but our policies were commercial and we would readily pursue this with County.  John Rosellini:  cost of $2,400 for Pine Brook Road.  Stan Omland, PE:  10 years ago, electric companies changed regulations, light intersection, change in utility company, don’t know how she came up with this. Work with Tony Barile on this issue.  Make this priority for next meeting. 

Update:  OB1A Zone change – would be OB1A zone and adjoining church property.  Everything is the same, eliminated regulation relating to Hgh. 80.  Make contact with Mr. Murphy and assuming ok, moved to re-recommend.  Motion made by:  Art Daughtry,

Seconded by:  Deborah Nielson   Roll call vote: unanimous

Wellhead Protection Ordinance – Township Committee referral report.  This ordinance can be adopted.  Motion to recommend final adoption made by John Rosellini, Seconded by: by Russ Lipari – Roll call vote: unanimous

Paver Ordinance – Township Committee referred this introduced ordinance to the Planning Board.  Scheduled for adoption on August 13th.  Linda White indicated she received an email from Anthony Barile, PE on this issue.  Stan Omland, PE indicated that the existing stormwater management prepared by Mr. Barile already requires the information he referenced in his email.  This document already requires all of these complex things for any application whereby additional modifications are made, including porches, decks, and engineering is supposed to be involved in this review process.

Mr. Omland indicated he only saw the email at the end of the day, but this is already in the stormwater management ordinance.  Board members felt that there should be a limit on calculations for the small upgrades on a residential lot, and that the stormwater management ordinance should be amended to reflect this.  Deborah Nielson:  we just adopted that ordinance, and voiced concerns on having to amend it. Stan Omland, PE:  due to late day, he needs to discuss this with Mr. Barile to see where his concern is.  Planning Board carried to:  July 26, 2007 agenda. 


PMISC07-22 Primo’s Pizza & Deli – 101 Rt. 46 E Unit 121 – pizza and deli – 4 employees – hours of operation 11am-3am Mon-Sat – signage to be in compliance with approved theme of: white background with light medium blue and/or dark gray lettering (not royal blue) w/sign frame consistent with existing roof color  (Rensellear Properties); approve four tables(Big Al’s)

Approved unanimously subject to compliance with all agency findings, use letter and sign theme and compliance with four tables only.  Motion made by John Rosellini, Seconded by: Russ Lipari






Minutes of 6-28-07 Eligible:  John Rosellini, Marie Kull, Deborah Nielson, Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry, Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty 

Subcommittee Minutes of 6-19-07 – Eligible:  Russ Lipari, Ladis Karkowsky, John Rosellini, John Visco, and Art Daughtry 

Approved unanimously in a motion made by: John Rosellini

Seconded by: Deborah Nielson


Omland Engineering – O/E for: $780; $300

Burgis Associates – Trust for: $180

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $120, $30, $30, $60, $90

Approved unanimously in a Motion made by: Russ Lipari

Seconded by: John Rosellini



Note: Michael Carroll, Esq, swore the board professionals. 


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 Carried from 6-14-07 Eligible voters:   John Rosellini, Marie Kull, Russ Lipari, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty, Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry , John Visco, Gary Lewis, Larry Hines, Deborah Nielson                                                                       ACT BY:  7-13-07

Note:  Record reflects Ms. Nielson certified to the missed hearing on 6-14-07 verifying she listened to electronic recording and executed certification for record.

Present:            Steven Schepis, Esq.

                        Mark Walker, PE

                                    Steven Sharpe, Applicant         

Stan Omland, PE received plans 9 days prior to the meeting and due to July 4th holiday, didn’t have opportunity to review.  He indicated that he would listen to applicant’s engineer testify. 

Tract 3

Mr. Schepis indicated that Mr. Burgis is satisfied with revisions.

Mark Walker:  circulation and parking issues discussed.  At last meeting, turnaround spaces discussed.  The last parking space at the southern parking bay has been converted to a turn around area; an additional space added to the front of northernmost parking area; modified exit area so width of aisle coming out went from 24’ to 18’, relocated parking space still maintains 10’ from property line.  Comments from fire chief as to access around perimeter and fire truck.  Report from Fire Prevention indicated they could access around entire parking area.  Mr. Burgis comment in recent report relative to angled parking on easterly side of building discussed.  Mr. Walker prepared an exhibit representing angled parking.  Mr. Burgis:  at the last meeting, Planning Board agreed it was acceptable as presented.  No need to see exhibit. That plan would lose a parking space and require a parking variance.

Other issue was on water and stormcepter proposed per Uhl’s office.  After discussion with Mr. Omland, storm inceptor will meet water quality, and where stormwater enters into detention basin, they will construct a gabion structure retained in front and a number of plants that would help filter the water and they will have these four bay area traps for sediments in order to maintain basin.  This was discussed with Mr. Uhl and both offices agreed this would be a more naturalized way to treat the storm water.  This was the preferred drainage solution, and applicant provided a detail in letter submitted to board on June 29, 2007; applicant will eliminate storm ceptor and put four bay instead.  Revised plans will be submitted.

Another issue:  sign.  Prefers to have a freestanding sign.  Sign is located adjacent to the water fountain.  Went thru and calculated sign area based on façade of building, which is 5% or 50 sq. ft.  The code provides 50 sq. ft. and reduces side of sign from 24 sq. ft. to 20 q. ft. and sign on building measured letter only, 16 sq. ft., so add total sides to be 36 sq. ft. where 50 sq. ft. allowed.  Sign originally proposed at easterly end and now relocated to adjacent.  No freestanding sign, need a variance; more than one sign proposed, building mounted sign is supposed to be 21’5 where 8’ is allowed.  Applicant indicated that he needed the sign higher than 8’ off ground.  Freestanding sign meets height.  Size of lettering and maximum size of lettering is 1.5’ and reduced it to Montville is 1’.  No variance required, and letter height on freestanding will meet code:  variance for freestanding and number of signs, height of building mountain signs. Reviewed surrounding area, which had freestanding signs as well as building mounted signs. 

Stan Omland, PE:  two comments re:  conservation easement and a deed restriction on stormwater management.  Planning Board desires conservation easement?  Applicant will give conservation easement on area not developed.  It will be restricted by deed, and easement required by DEP setting aside for storm water management in perpetuity.  Applicant agrees to comply.  Stan Omland, PE:  4 bays saves applicant close to $30,000, and is a better solution and glad Mr. Uhl consented to it.  Are comfortable with engineering.  Haven’t done a thorough review of plans, and only concern, ok subject to any reasonable other engineering comments. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  all issues have been addressed except is on page. 3, additional landscaping requested. Applicant will provide and have Mr. Burgis present for the plantings.

Mr. Cutillo:  signage is lit from ground up, and could lower sign but problem is with amount of landscaping and distance of building from road, if the sign isn’t high enough, you won’t see it, and there could be other obstructions on site.  Mr. Cutillo:  This is not that high off the ground.  Fits nicely in this and would get in way of landscaping.  Art Daughtry:  is this mature landscaping?  Is this a hedge?  Mr. Cutillo:  Will get bigger.  Deborah Nielson:  this is unique so we are not presenting a precedent.  John Rosellini:  It is 21.5’ above grade at this time.  Letters are approximately is 16 sq. ft.  Mr. Cutillo:  If this were standard you would see less gracious sign.  This is applied lettering, not backlit, decorative lighting on a stucco finish. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  does this serve public visibility driving down street?  Mr. Cutillo:  both do the same thing.  Mr. Cutillo:  this is title of the building.   John Rosellini:  sign variance travels with building.  Russ Lipari:  sign would be starting at about ceiling level using our roofline in meeting room as an example.  John Rosellini:  this variance if approved is approved with the dimensions and goes with numbers.

A4 – exhibit with numbers/dimensions – reflects all monument signs.

Having more signage on site.  There is 36 sq. ft. where 50 sq. ft. is permitted.  If you limit, gives guidance.  You can make them mounted as part of this variance.  Decorative.  Ladis Karkowsky:  concern is we are setting a precedent, and we want a comment.

June 29th, sheet 1, variance 19 thru 24, with 6 variances with signs.  Mr. Walker:  modified list shows 6 variances for sign.  There are actually 4, modified signs since this plan is before Planning Board.  Variances:  freestanding sign; variance for mounting height, and two signs where one sign allowed; removed size of letters no longer a variance and total signage area is reduced to 36 sq. ft.

If sign removed from building, only variance would be freestanding were none proposed.  Board polled: John Rosellini, Larry Hines, John Visco, Russ Lipari, Deborah Nielson, Art Daughtry sees no need for sign.

Applicant will remove the building sign, and will install the freestanding sign monument sign only.  Applicant withdrew request for variance.  Name requested to be changed to:  Montville Health and Wellness Center. 

Opened to public

Hearing none, public portion closed unanimously in a Motion made by:  Russ Lipari, Seconded by: Deborah Nielson

John Rosellini moved that the application for preliminary and final site plan be approved subject to compliance with all testimony, compliance with the planner and engineer’s reports, compliance with all required reports agencies, and all outside county, federal and state reviews, compliance with Uhl’s report, except for the change in drainage as specified this evening, revisions of plan to incorporate same, that the proposed café and salon portions of the facility will only be open to memberships; that the total floor area is 11,088 sq. ft., variance for providing parking within 10’ of property line where a minimum of 25’ required; variance for maximum impervious coverage for 57.2% where 55% permitted; compliance with additional landscaping, one freestanding monument sign only, provide limit of clearing on revised plans; existing nonconformities consisting of lot area (101,235 where 217,800 required); minimum lot width at street line where 170.8’ exists where 360’ required; and at setback line where 271.5 exists and 360’ required, normal applicable provisions of site plan approvals.  Seconded by: Larry Hines 

Roll call vote: John Rosellini,, Russ Lipari, Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry , John Visco, Larry Hines, Deborah Nielson – yes

PMSP/F06-15 S. Development – Major Subdivision – 80 Hook Mountain    Road, Block 164, Lot 8.01, R27A zone – 3 lot subdivision consisting of existing home/lot and two new lots existing lot/home with two new  - Notice acceptable & Carried from agenda of 6-14-07  

ACT BY:  9-15-07 

Present:            Steven Schepis, Esq. – agreed to carry to July 26, 2007

Motion by Deborah Nielson, Seconded by: by Larry Hines

Roll call vote: unanimous

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 & 6-28-07 – 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

Note:  Art Daughtry and Russ Lipari certified to missed meeting of 4-26-07 and are eligible to vote; certifications are in file

Present:  Jack Sweeney, Esq. & Tom Boorady, PE

July 6, 2007 PE report of Omland Associates discussed:  applicant agrees to comply with article #1.  Need confirmation that mottling indicates seasonally high water table.  It appeared that the applicant did have some seasonable high water table, and that it appears this mottling could be attributed to a perched water table condition.  Applicant concurred.

As to article #2, applicant indicated the soil samples were taken at 9 to 10’.  Will revise soil log to depict as part of the record and confirms soils was permeability at recharge level?  Stan Omland, PE indicated:  feels there are high perm soils and they have good receptivity.

Article #3, wall details will include construction techniques to collect water.  The retaining walls proposed are boulder retaining walls.

Article #4, relative to the stormwater infiltration system sited between existing dwelling and proposed structure so that the existing residents at the toe of the hill would not suffer additional adverse groundwater impacts.   Mr. Omland:  May need a toe swale to catch water before it goes to wall. Discussion on design ensured:  may put a swale on top of wall?  Must be noted on subdivision plan.  Already depicted basins on plans.  Mr. Omland indicated he is comfortable that drainage will work.  Indicated:  applicant put drainage in front of house for impact to house vs neighboring residents.

Article #5, Applicant agreed with complying with 0% run off.  Stan Omland, PE:  Soil logs only went to depth and will hit rock layer underlying this area, when you hit rock, where will it go?  Mr. Boorady:  If fractured rock, it will go under site.  It is in critical water area, and that this limit assumed fractured.  Mr. Omland:  he did not go to this analysis.  Mr. Omland:  there is evidence of seepage at toe of hill into soils into top of rock and surfacing at this location.  Mr. Omland has seen it.  Have some fear that what is going into soils thru this drywells will make it down to soils run along surface of rock and daylight down below.  DEP rules and regs do not go to this extent.  They have no choice of disposing this water, there is no proof for or against that it will cause an impact downstream other than what is logically depicted.  Relocate drywells to evenly locate.  Applicant is not adding water to the ground.  Applicant is putting in seepage pits and slowing it down.  It will be retained 72 hours at least and are holding the water.  Are collecting water that would normally be there.  There will be some lost of vegetation, leaves, etc.  Only concern per Stan Omland, PE is the vague analysis of what will make it thru soils and this cannot be determined without a lot of studies.  Don’t know if it will happen. Applicant did the best of what DEP requires and our ordinance require?

Art Daughtry:  is there some way we can protect both sides by performance bond and/or best engineering and we believe there won’t be an issue, what is homeowners’ recourse.  Stan Omland, PE:  there are some conditions existing today that is a problem.  If problem could be measured under storm parameters and model it today and detect difference, then we would know the difference.  Rainfall is important to gather data.  Stan Omland, PE:  can’t tell at this time, but we can ask them to bond and put in more stormwater devices, but we can’t compare it to a storm before development occurred.  Art Daughtry:  then we must accept that we had a pre-existing condition.  Stan Omland, PE: you can say you have existing conditions; we want to put in more drywells than conventionally required.  We then can require drywells distributed over the property.  It was felt that the applicant should install more drywells.

John Rosellini:  are there any catch basins on Old Jacksonville.  Stan Omland, PE:  There is one at the very bottom.  John Rosellini:  is it better to go to the street storm drain?  Discussion ensued. Mr. Feeny:  Water & sewer installation required township to go down 18’ at which time they hit no rock.  Mr. Boorady:  have installed an extra pit already from prior hearings.  John Rosellini:  why not, in return for issuance of variance, look for improvements in the area.  Negative criteria have to be met, and perhaps we should consider a deposit into capital improvements to road, and tag his improvement monies into this area. 

Applicant was requested to install an additional three (3) dry wells and good faith interest post a $10,000 bond for off-site improvements of Jacksonville Road. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  there is a discrepancy between engineer and architect map, l3.01 as to square footage.   The architect states 2556 foundation footprint.  Mr. Boorady:  The 3230 is the footprint encompassing decks and porches.  Testified previously as to steep slopes, and asked for lot 13.01 for steep slope intrusion, requires waiver from slopes?  Comment 1i.  Planner provided slope testimony, and engineering testimony is to provide a level building lot, will meet building height requirement and will meet new height ordinance but they have to disturb steep slopes for building and parking in front.  They also need construction of retaining wall to stabilize steep slopes, and by leveling lot; it increases storm water to infiltrate.  Moved house as forward as possible to minimize steep slopes and provided 18,000 sq. ft. steep slope preservation. 

Tract 4

Ladis Karkowsky:  no blasting will be involved.

Margaret Izzo, 24 Old Jacksonville Road:  slope issues.  Two sets of photos, which show slopes from Ms. Izzo’s perspective and can see roof of existing building.  Concerned where this new house will be?  Will it look like it is coming down?

N1 7-12-07 – photos of viewscape from Ms. Izzo’s homestead – marked in

Drainage concerns voiced, noting the major storm Montville experienced:  it blocked off roadways, water can come down from hill for over a week.  Paper road was where sewer line was installed.  There was no problem to the left until the sewers came in.  What kind of problems if you don’t put relief between two houses.  What kind of problems will happen with her lands based on what happened with sewer? Her property is lot 15, 14, 9 and is where water runs off.  What can you do?     

David Hanson, PE – engineer for Izzo’s.  – Previously Board professionals sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.

Discussed:  Mottling.  Saw nothing in the soils and concerns about funnel of water 7’ away and not affecting house.  Applicant will put ground water in, and there has to be a relief somewhere, and there will be boulder walls downstream when dirt behind wall will be saturated.  Talk is about putting additional seepage pits in, and set aside bonding for improvements to Old Jacksonville Road, but the problem is you are protecting road not resident.  Problem is water coming out of bank against back of house due to groundwater infiltration.  Improvements in Jacksonville will stop icing but not the water running in.  Will solve road problems but not the groundwater problems.

Getting back to soils test:  did a SIFT test.  You back this up with another type of sample testing.  Saw four tests per hole and concerned but confirms that soils are good if A4 and A5. 

Finally, if you review one of last sheets in project plan set and go thru calculations in slope ordinance, there is 29,000 sq. ft. in excess of 25%; 3,000 of slopes between 20-24.9% and 3,000 between 15 and 19.  There is only a 17,000 full credit slope on this lot.  Taking a substandard lot and making it more substandard on severely constrained lot where building envelope doesn’t meet code.   Feels there will be a downstream impact from development of this lot.

No further public, motion to close to the public made by Larry Hines Seconded by: Art Daughtry     Unanimous

Mr. Feeney summarized:  as far as drainage is concerned, water exists now, and this application is going to improve this.  There is not one person from other roads, just one resident here to object, and concerns by Ms. Izzo will be addressed.

John Rosellini:  know there is a problem out there, and we are looking to protect residents.  Have to rely on testimony and our expert testimony.  Point being:  there may be a problem existing and we are not looking to intensify it.  Don’t like to see statements made like that.

Art Daughtry:  the offering by property owner’s engineer, is there anything else other than statements offered that is not on record that we should know about?  Stan Omland, PE:  if the question relative to what Mr. Hanson put out testimony as to degree of slope, this is nothing new.

John Rosellini:  moved that this subdivision be approved subject to compliance with engineer’s recommendation, compliance with all testimony and revisions of plans to incorporate changes requested and/or agreed upon, posting of a $10,000 bond for the purpose of future roadway improvements on Jacksonville Road; subdivision of 1.97 into two lots, one with existing single family and one for new home site on westerly side of glen view road north of old Jacksonville in R27A in CWR Restricted area; Lot 13.01 requires variances for minimum lot area, 42,078 sq. ft. where 43,750 required; front yard of 39.4’ where 50’ required; and side yard of 19’ where 25’ required; variance for northernmost portion of the driveway which is 0’  where 5’ required; compliance with all professional reports rendered; agency findings, normal applicable provisions of subdivision approvals.  Seconded by: John Visco

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: 9/15/07

Applicant granted extension of time to 9-15-07 and will notice for the 9-13-07 agenda. 

NEW BUSINESS                                                                 





Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion made by Russ Lipari

Seconded by: Larry Hines

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White


Absent w/explanation

Absent w/explanation

Absent w/explanation

Must certify to 6-14-07 hearing

Certified to 4-26-07

Certified to 4-26-07

Certified to 11-06-06

Certified to 11-06-06


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack