|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge
Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF JULY 12,
2007
ROLL CALL
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
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None
COMMITTEE REPORTS
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
PLANNING BUSINESS
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.
WAIVERS
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
RESOLUTIONS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
None
MINUTES
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
INVOICES
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
LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS
None
Note: Michael Carroll, Esq, swore the board professionals.
OLD BUSINESS
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
None
CONCEPTS
None
Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion made by Russ
Lipari
Seconded by: Larry Hines
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. White
Secretary
Must certify
to 6-14-07 hearing
|
