MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2007
Mr. Rosellini - absent Mr.
Karkowsky - present
Ms. Kull - absent Mr.
Daughtry - present
Ms. Nielson - absent Mr.
Visco - present
Mr. Lipari - present Mr. Lewis - present
Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present Mr. Hines - present
Mr. Witty (alt#2) - present
Frank Russo, PE
Michael Carroll, Esq.
Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP
Hank Huesebusch, PE (for Woodmont Hearing)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
indicated she held a meeting last week with the chairman of the Planning Board
and Board of Adjustment and the board attorneys to discuss the growing complexity
of planning in our town, the balancing of the needs of new applicants with
existing homeowners and business owners.
It was a good way of getting the boards to look at common goals and
issues facing them especially since we are dealing with many different complex
planning applications. We also looked
at ways to balance the needs of new applicants against existing homeowners and
business owners. Different ways of
approaching uniformity discussed resulting in asking that both board
professionals share their professional reports on major site plans to assist in
heightening their sensitivity to the issues facing us, and to look towards
coordination of improvements in same manner.
The chairs would also like these professionals to advise the land use
office when development applications are filed and there is off-site
easements/disturbance and/or a major affect, then extension beyond MLUL 200’
should be considered by township. Also discussed, that the Board of Adjustment
is allowed to request a report from the Planning Board on certain applications,
and they may start that practice.
Linda White summarized the subcommittee meeting held this
morning with Joe Burgis and representatives of Olde Town relative to the
adoption of the Towaco Center Master Plan. Also discussed was the Township’s involvement in pursuing NJ
Transit for control of the parking to allow for all possible users to share,
and the possibility of development of a piece of property owned by the township
as a municipal parking lot. These issues
are being investigated by Township.
Gary Lewis updated Planning Board on the recent EDC meeting
– he summarized the recommendation offered by EDC suggesting that the Planning
Board reconsider their position of elimination of the aged restricted housing
use on the GI auto site. Indicating
that this use may be feasible whether or not market exists now with the opinion
by EDC that this may change in the future, and that this use may be worth leaving
on table as a possible permitted use on this site since this market may
There was a also a presentation from the property owner
along Changebridge to develop this Sunoco station upgrading it with
retail/sales and services along corridor.
He delineated his vision on the current vacant property. The uses represented at this meeting
reflected what was representative of small shops which many people voiced they
would like to see on this corridor. He
indicated he was impressed with presentation and we should continue to explore
this request as it shows some potential.
He indicated the EDC also corresponded with the Township
Committee and wants to see the Township Committee go forward with the DOT study
on Rt. 46. Mr. Karkowsky indicated he
felt the EDC should concentrate on the properties available in the current
zones and may also able to make headway on getting these vacancies filled vs
developing vacant properties. He would
like to see the EDC try and get some of the areas vacate some help and to help
get these new businesses into town.
relative to the EDC recommendation as to aged restricting housing being
reconsidered on the GI site, he was recently in Phoenix where there was an
approval for 3,000 aged restricted units, of which 1200 were built and since they
were having difficulties with filling them, the changed the 55 and over to 45
and over. He reminded the Planning
Board of what the planner’s comments were at the GI meeting and these concerns
should be taken into consideration.
What could happen down the road is the issue is. He feels there is a real possibility in play
on this type of use and we should be concerned about impacts to our
community. Ladis Karkowsky: voiced concerns based on what Mr. Daughtry
relayed since Phoenix does have a lot more retirees out there and if they
experienced this problem, then we should be concerned. Understanding this may not happen 10 years
from now. Planning Board indicated they
are taking this EDC recommendation under advisement, but the board’s opinion
was based on long-term possibilities and concerns.
Discussion ensued as to any way to ensure something like
changing deed restriction on ages can be set in such a way it can’t be changed
in future years. Michael Carroll, Esq.
indicated there is no way to throw something in with deed restrictions since
legislation can change this type of requirement later on and then their
findings apply. Art Daughtry: so even if developer and future association
wants it, legislation can affect that?
Michael Carroll, Esq.: whatever
the legislation says becomes law.
Ladis Karkowsky: if
you get a developer to spend that much monies to clear up site, he will want a
higher density than what we may want to consider.
concerns voiced about lifting and/or changing age restricted housing due
to impacts to our municipality from influx of school children and other issues
that may be out of hand to municipality.
Gary Lewis and Tony Speciale will take this message back to EDC.
Update by Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP – Sign
Linda White indicated she needs this sign ordinance change
and would like authority from the Planning Board to meeting with Joseph Burgis,
AICP, PP in order to bring this open issue to closure. No objection voiced.
Route 46 Median Fence
summarized that the Township Committee requested a recommendation from the
Planning Board on a fence along Rt. 46, reviewing past history and problems
from over 3 years ago in the area of Sunset Motel. Discussion ensued. Ladis
Karkowsky felt we shouldn’t have any fencing in view of our Rt. 46
revitalization plans and the maintenance problems that would be
encountered. The fence would also have
to go down the entire middle of highway to Caldwell, and how will they provide
maintenance? Art Daughtry: the Township Committee referral was if we
are going to do something, what type of fence.
It was indicated regardless of what was recommended, it would be
unlikely that the DOT would provide maintenance of grass, and feels that fencing
along this area would be more of a maintenance problem and aesthetic problem
than we desire. Recommends no fence.
Leigh Witty: feels there should be no fence. Tony
Speciale indicated no fence, would be maintenance issue and not something we
would want along corridor; Larry Hines feels problems of past have been
resolved, doesn’t see need for fence; John Visco feels the same, no fence due
to corridor and upgrades we are promoting; Gary Lewis has serious reservations
about DOT putting anything up but galvanized fence, prefers no fence since
these types of fences do rust and feels DOT will maintain area less on
non-critical roadways; Russ Lipari: if problems are gone, see no point, feels
it to be an eyesore;
Art Daughtry: will
bring feelings of Planning Board back to Township Committee at next meeting.
Mrs. White asked the Planning Board about amendment to the
fence ordinance in two areas: first,
requests have been coming in to land use to allow vinyl clad chain link, since chain
link is prohibited. Some have asked for
side/rear. Discussion ensued and
Planning Board members thought vinyl clad in dark green/black in rear yard only
should be acceptable. Mrs. White will
draft change for review by Planning Board.
She indicated that there is a problem with the deer fence
provision since when we originally discussed this we were looking at large
lots. The ordinance doesn’t specify
this, but she would recommend we put in 3 acres+ since she is getting those
that did want chain link to ask for the deer fencing which is more of an issue
in the smaller lots. Planning Board
members discussed and agreed. Mrs.
White will draft changes and return for review by Planning Board.
Cancellation of August 23, 2007 meeting – Linda White indicated several
members asked if the Planning Board was going to cancel the August 23rd
meeting, and scheduled to discuss since she has to deal with scheduling and
carry over hearings. Planning Board
discussed and moved to cancel this meeting.
PMS/C 07-03 – SUPPA RESTAURANT – Amended Preliminary
& Final Site plan/variances for parking to allow 4,566 pf of existing space
to use for storage, retail sales, offices and a banquet hall to existing 3,619
sq. ft. restaurant use –Eligible voters:
Ladis Karkowsky, Gary Lewis, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull, Tony Speciale,
Motion made by: Tony Speciale
Seconded by: Gary Lewis
Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Gary Lewis, Leigh Witty,
and Tony Speciale
PMN06-04 – BECK – 15 Glenview Road – B: 31 L: 13 – Minor
Subdivision & Associated Variances – Eligible: Deborah Nielson, Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, Art
Daughtry, Larry Hines, John Rosellini, Russ Lipari,
Motion made by: Russ
Seconded by: John
Roll call vote:
Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Russ Lipari
Minutes of 7-12-07 -
Eligible: Deborah Nielson, Ladis
Karkowsky, John Visco, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, John Rosellini, Russ Lipari, John Visco
Motion made by: Russ
Seconded by: John
Roll call vote:
Burgis Associates – Trust for: $390
Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $150; $450
Omland Engineering – Trust for: $420, $60, $240, $90, $180
Uhl Baron – Trust for: $390
Motion made by:
Seconded by: Art
Roll call vote:
professionals sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.
PROPERTIES – Apple Partners – 115
Main Rd. - B: 51, L: 28 – minor site plan with variances parking lot expansion
– Notice Acceptable & Carried from 6-28-07 w/notice ACT
Huelsebusch PE present
Joseph Vena, Esq.
Preliminary & final site plan to add a loading door to front of
building and expand parking. Requires a
parking variance since there will be less parking than permitted.
Mattarazza, PE, and Barry Mandelbaum
Barry Mandelbaum - sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.
Indicated he the managing member of LLC. Application is to permit parking in front of
building so unit in front of the building has better opportunity to rent. Belief is if additional parking is provided
in front, there is better opportunity to rent the building. Although adequate parking exists on site,
most of the parking is in rear and side of building. If they can increase parking in the front, there would be better
opportunity to rent building. A number
of tenants found it too far a walk from front to where parking is located.
Frank Mattarrazo, PE and AICP – professional sworn by
Michael Carroll, Esq. – credentials accepted
discussed: site is located on south side of 202 across from Harrigans with
existing building in I2 zone with driveway from Main Road to parking.
Sheet 2 of plans
displayed depicting building location on property. Majority of parking is in rear.
Driveway access comes off of Rt. 202 and splits for parking access and
loading on northeasterly side of building.
Major parking area is in rear with 111 and ordinance requires 136: deficient in parking.
Sheet 3 marked in as colorized site plan marked in as A1 dated 7-26-7 sheet 3
of 5 Grading Plan
proposed parking lot expansion and expansion of existing parking lot with 20
new parking spaces. Applicant also
proposed new overhead door for access to the corner unit. Parking for this unit is in rear with a
sidewalk that runs parallel to building.
Designed parking lot in such a way that it slopes towards the northerly
direction and middle of new parking area will collect storm water and go to
underground detention facility.
number of parking spaces even with additional 20 are 5 short. Requesting loading door on face of building
facing street. There are 3 doors on
this building wall. The building is
situated in that it is rotated 45 degrees so that front of building is not
parallel to roadway. It is difficult to
see if traveling in easterly direction.
Building is 135’ back from roadway where 50’ permitted. If you put it in side where it is permitted,
you would still see from roadway and that location would make it difficult to
Code on loading
indicates loading areas must be provided, so providing overhead door for this
unit mitigates detriment and enhances zoning ordinance. The uses that are permitted are ones that
have not garnered any interest. It’s
been a year since it is vacant, and tenants come to site thinking they are
having a loading door. Market
established need for this. Ordinance
also requires loading door for each independent use.
reports discussed: Refer to Engineer’s
report of June 17th discussed agreeing to provide perc test in area
of proposed detention system. Applicant
agreed. Streetscape lights along Rt.
202, recommend 3 lights Towaco Rail and applicant agreed.
Health Dept required
perc and utility mark outs and they will be complied with.
Planner’s report of
May 9th was discussed.
Waiver needed for existing parking space doesn’t conform to size in
parking area closest to 202, which is existing parking space, and it is not
parallel to other sizes and is a pre-existing non-conforming space.
Waiver to install shade trees along road. Applicant is proposing new landscaping around perimeter of
proposed parking area, shown on sheet 4 of 5.
Proposed maples along perimeter of proposed parking lot and some site
lighting for parking area that will be shoebox type. Plan doesn’t depict
additional shrubs around perimeter but applicant agreed to install perimeter
shrubs and will comply with planner’s report.
Other landscaping around entrance driveway will remain.
Requested: waiver from installation of sidewalks along
frontage of Main Road. No other
sidewalks exist along Main Road in either direction. Not practical since it goes nowhere. Providing sidewalk to the east would have sidewalks where there
is a guardrail on properties to east; to the west, some residential homes that
are close to ROW line.
Testified no substantial
detrimental to area, zone plan and zoning scheme and ordinances to make it more
conforming and advances zoning and sees no detriment. By providing parking and loading area, more viable to rent space
and not to build or expand, just to further better utilize existing space. By taking vacant building area and make them
able to occupy new tenants advances code.
existing site marked in 4 photos marked A2 dated 7-26-07.
discussed. Art Daughtry: picture no. 3: is the pole shown closest to the new parking lot. Is the new parking lot about 30’ from corner
of pole? Mr. Mattarazzo: will be 45’ from pole. Applicant marked up exhibit A2 with the
increases to 49.6% where 55% required.
No variances required.
Joseph Burgis, AICP,
PP: indicated he made some
recommendations on landscaping and applicant indicated that they would concur,
and if you approve make it subject to submittal of revised landscaping plan. Would want to see more shrubs in parking
area. Art Daughtry: want to see more landscaping in extension of
area. Michael Carroll, Esq.: resolution condition generally makes the
landscaping subject to final review and report of planner and engineer. Mr. Vena:
marked A3 on third picture where proposed landscaping would go, and if
approved, would be subject to applicant and board professionals to respond to
it. Will update landscaping plan within
30 days. Question asked: what is timeframe to start
construction. Mr. Vena: not sure when
improvements would start since depends on finding a tenant.
Huelsebusch: please confirm that the
electric for street lighting is on applicant’s property and electric goes to
building is paid by applicant on property and responsibility of the streetscape
lighting. Will comply with lighting
specifications required by township and may be bonded. No problem submitting plans within 30 days
as required by condition. Don’t know
when work will be done based on tenant need.
Art Daughtry: regarding lighting: recognize box lights and on roadway
aesthetically pleasing lights, but have all the lights the same. Are there existing lights, but what are
additional burden to make a decorative lighting along front of parking lots.
Karkowsky: there are 3 new lights. Existing lights are wall mounted.
Leave wall mounted
lights. All lights interior in lot and
along streetscape would be the same.
Linda White summarized Township Committee is looking at streetscape
lighting, and that until this issue is addressed town wide, the Planning Board
will take escrow for installation of lights once decided upon. Applicant agreed.
Gary Lewis: have no problem with application, but as to
property owner’s list and map, is it accurate since he can’t locate property
owner on map for 30.01, 30.02 and 30.03.
Mr. Vena: satisfied the 200’
list notice per assessor. Notice
acceptable. Mr. Lewis: Why the 500’ line? Mr. Vena: it is part of
the submission checklist. Checklist
requires area map to depict properties within 500’ of map. Linda White: it demonstrates impact/surrounding areas.
Open to public,
hearing none, Planning Board unanimously closed meeting to public in a Motion
made by: Art Daughtry, Seconded by: Russ Lipari
Motion to grant
preliminary/final site plan, variances requested, granting of all waivers
requested, installation and/or bonding of streetlight, compliance with all
agency and professional reports, compliance with revisions to landscaping;
final review/inspections to determine adequate landscaping subject to review by
Stan Omland, PE and Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP.
Normal application conditions of preliminary/final site plan approval
Motion made by: Art Daughtry; Seconded by: Seconded by: John
Roll call vote: Art
Daughtry, Russ Lipari, Gary Lewis, John Visco, Ladis Karkowsky, Larry Hines,
Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty
Resolution to be
adopted in August.
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 - Notice acceptable & Carried from agenda of 6-14-07
ACT BY: 9-15-07
Note: Frank Russo
Mr. Schepis reviewed location and issues of wetlands
existing on this site, indicating there is little room for potential
development. Out 16 acres, only 2 acres
would be free of environmental constrained areas. Single family will remain with two new building lots on 16 acres. Majority would be subject to 14 acres
conservation easement in favor of DEP and/or in favor of Township, if
acceptable. Also would agree to deed
restrictions of no further subdivision.
Mr. Osterkorn sworn
by Michael Carroll, Esq. Testified as Planner, Engineer and Surveyor
Credentials given and accepted by Planning Board.
A1 – colorized
subdivision plans SP1 thru 10,
explaining contents of submittal. There
will be two 6 acre lots, and one 4 acres.
He reviewed the lots under subdivision.
A2 – colorized SP5 –
detailed transition averaging plan. The existing dwelling is located on Hook
Mountain Road. Lot lines go out to the
River. The Entire site is 16 ½ acres. Outlined is the area for two proposed new
dwellings located on southern half of property 70x40 footprint, and there is
room to shift building within envelope.
Property is restricted by wetland line and 100 year flood, and the 100
year buffer lines runs thru existing two proposed lots to adjacent property
thru existing house and up to northern end of property. Applied to DEP to modify and they do have a
reduction compensation area. The yellow
areas are proposed reduction area to have a buildable area, and there is also
an area on existing home outside existing footprint of existing dwelling. Orange area will be compensation area. Entire lot with exception of building lot
areas will be dedicated as conservation area.
Property slopes towards river, some moderate grades with some steeper
grades on northern side of property and along Hook Mtn. Road.
For the building
lots proposed, there will be compliance with the 5,000 sq. ft. building
envelope. As part of DEP application,
state requires conservation restriction on modified transition area. Areas inside and outside conservation restricted
depicted. 13 acres will be conservation
area and can issue to township in same area that is standard board
requests. No further subdivision also
John Visco: existing
house concerns as to whether or not in the future they will choose to demolish. Lot 8.01 on A2 reviewed. This plan reflected existing house. The total building envelope is 80x60 and Mr.
Schepis indicated they could rebuild a new home if demolition exists. He noted, though, a variance would be
required in view of lack of combined side yards. .
A3 marked it
depicted existing house lot – SP3. Mr. Osterkorn indicated the
orange area is the existing dwelling.
There is 105’ between houses.
Can meet 20’ offset on both sides but can’t meet the side yard combines
due to the requirement of 35% road width due to the other lots being cut out,
the one lot has a lot width of 200’ and they cannot meet the combined side yard
percentage as a result of same.
Applicant requires a c variance on this. He indicated they look for new dwelling also to have certain
Other two lots are
conforming to zoning requirements.
requirements must be adhered to.
A4 exhibit –
blowup of 3 lots showing conservation easement and 5,000 sq. ft. areas. This plan reflects the steepest slopes in
red that are in excess of 25%. Small
area at the rear of the building envelope around 30’ off existing dwelling is a
steep slope and along side directly to northerly side also, but propose no construction
in this area. Slopes in 15-25% exist on
all 3 lots, but majority are outside construction area with exception of small
area in front yard and a few adjacent to steeper slopes. Ones to northern side won’t be touched; ones
to south will have a small area to be regraded. 8.02 and 8.03 are in compliance; asking for relief for lot 8.01
since area of disturbance with 4:1 slope within building area is about 300 sq.
ft. This are is behind existing dwelling backed by conservation easement.
Joseph Burgis, AICP,
PP: his report was addressed with the
only issue outstanding is that that the side yard is listed incorrectly: it should be 23’ side yard requirement due
to height of structures vs 20’. This
side yard must be 23’5. Applicant will
revise maps accordingly, and side yard will be complied with on proposed lot
8.02 and 8.03 will be complied with.
Utility and services
discussing, referring Township Engineer as to improvements requested:
Sheet sp8, detailed utility plan – marked in as A5
main location ends 200’ south; existing sanitary sewer in pink runs past two
proposed dwellings and can get by gravity.
Proposed two wells on site marked in yellow for two proposed dwellings.
The existing dwelling on northern side of site was to have septic located since
original concerns was that it was in front.
Mr. Osterkorn went out and uncovered septic on rear of property about
10’ off house and noted it appeared in fair condition. He spoke to neighbor next door and they
indicated that the uncle lived there and 7 people occupied home and they never
had a problem with septic. There is
also an existing well in front of site.
Proposal is to leave septic on existing house lot. He also indicated the electric and telephone
runs along pavement.
Pavement width on Hook Mountain Road is 24’. Proposal is to dedicate 8.5’ along front in
front of dwelling along frontage of entire property. ROW width of Hook Mountain Road is approximately 50’. Dedication will result in 58.’ width. Proposing no physical improvements based on
area and doesn’t believe any improvement is required. Speed limit is 24 to 40 mph and Mr. Osterkorn indicated he sees
no need for road widening. Existing
sanitary is in place. Widening roadway
on westerly may be a problem. RSIS says
it is Collector Street. Road is
compliant with state mandates.
more homes are going up in this area.
Vehicles go more than 40 mph in this area.
Existing home will keep existing septic, and when sewers are
installed in 2008 mandatory to connect.
Gary Lewis: asking
for waiver on curb and sidewalk for total frontage of entire lot of about 1,000
lineal feet. Why would applicant ask
for waiver from curb and sidewalk yet object to municipal engineer’s aggregate
gravel shoulder? Mr. Schepis: because
it requires relocation of utility pole.
High-tension wires exist on some of these. Gary Lewis: having
difficulty with this. Also: looking at sp04 dated June 1st,
shows a water main extension up to including the existing house. Applicant isn’t going to do this. Mr. Russo:
has to provide public water where available. Discussion ensued on expansion of water and installation of an
additional hydrant. Art Daughtry: do
plans show what is to be constructed?
Inconsistency exists on plans and reports.
Mr. Osterkorn: at
one point, applicant was putting in water main and considering it. Sewer is in place and water main stops short
of property. Water is not being
extended to this site. Sewer is in
place. Water main is not being
extended. Gary Lewis: if assumption is correct requiring public
water where required, is he required to extend in front of this
development? Mr. Russo: the existing dwelling has an existing well,
two proposed lots have no public water, believe any new dwellings must be in a
certain distance from a fire hydrant and is 400’ and don’t think there are
existing hydrants within 400’. Lot 8.03
is within 400’ of a fire hydrant. This
application is different in that it isn’t a new road, and it is because of
township definition this is considered major sub division vs minor, thus the
sanitary is already in front of lots 8.03 and part of 8.02. As part of the township goals, the sewer is
being extended by township.
Russ Lipari: if and
when this happens, do you intend to hook up existing home? Mr. Schepis: Existing home will also be hooked up. On engineer’s report, accepts dedication: but it also asked for cash contribution to
offset improvements, 3’ wide shoulder and relocating utility poles. Applicant is opposed to this request per Mr.
As to Septic situation, the concern about dedication at that
time was because of where the perceived location of existing septic was, but as
noted by Mr. Osterkorn, it was found and is reflected as behind the house. Did not resubmit plans to Board of Health.
Planning Board indicated revised drawings should have been given to Board of
Ladis Karkowsky polled board on extending water line: Art Daughtry confused since one page of plan
shows water line being extended into existing dwelling. Why put new wells in if water line is
shown. Mr. Osterkorn: the original plan indicated that the water
was being provided with a note that indicated
‘there may be water main proposed by others’. Depicted on sheet 04.
consider extension of water line to existing house so that utilities are to all
lots and additional fire hydrants along spacing and provide minimum water
flows. Tony Speciale: no information
on why it is stopped. Art
Daughtry: haven’t gotten to the poles
and safety issues on top of this which help extend water line.
Mr. Schepis: board
requires that applicant is responsible for water line along frontage and it
would have to be a dry line and in essence is going beyond what is obligated to
do. Discussion continued on expansion
of utilities, responsibilities of applicant, inconsistency on plans and
servicing new lots. Michael Carroll,
Esq.: counsel makes a point, and
doesn’t know what the RSIS requirements are, and would like to know what they
say. He indicated some of the improvements appear to be an off-site
contribution and applicant can only give his pro rata share. He does have right to ask for wavier from
sidewalks, curbs and shade trees. Other
people on the other side of the street may need to hook up to this line, and
are also obliged to share in this expense.
Want to know the answer on Section 42 details. If water line doesn’t extend to property and you make him do it,
it must be pro rata share. Provisions
of regulations must be made.
Gary Lewis: want to
know why this information wasn’t prepared prior to tonight’s hearing for the
board and counsel in order to make the decision. These issues are common relative issues to subdivision and must
be explored and shouldn’t come to light tonight and speculating what rights we
applicant did say that they believe they would be required to put dry
line in front of development and if this is accurate statement then we as a
township would want them to put the technical line in and the township would
worry about the 200’ connection needed to existing utilities. Mr. Russo:
there are two out parcels involved in this width. Michael Carroll, Esq.: this board has some experience with this
where the board in conjunction with a two lot subdivision (AU subdivision)
which was reversed by Judge Stanton who found it was too expensive for
improvements compared with subdivision proposal requested. Art Daughtry: if we are looking at other aspects, the applicant should look at
improvements to roadway and if it is about reasonableness, then board should
assess property for what is reasonable and what is being requested and decide
if request is reasonable.
Applicant is agreeable to running 500 ft. of 12” main to the
two new houses and put fire hydrants in.
Applicant finds this reasonable.
Russ Lipari: concerned with lack
of information from professionals. The
Planning Board made it clear to everyone that this is important so we don’t
want to waste time of applicant and that we need this information to make
decision more intelligently. He asked
that the professionals get verification for next meeting taking into
consideration discussions this evening as to contributions to road improvements,
poles and recommendation of our township engineer.
Art Daughtry asked Mrs. White to Check with the police
department as it relates to accidents that may have happen to make sure there
weren’t any accidents at this location.
Gary Lewis: haven’t
heard from property owner? We heard
about renovation yet application calls for addition to house. Putting another level on this house with 14’
from side yard, and would want the owner and applicant to be clear. Raising a level is also a variance.
Michael Semiao sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq. – owner
Existing house is a 3-bedroom ranch in deteriorating
condition with 3 bedrooms;
He intends to add a level requires a variance and/or new
house would need a new variance for combined side yards. Existing house has a problem due to location
close to front, which is only 14’ off road.
There may be an impact with a second story addition. Board may want to consider this with
Blowup section on SP2 reviewed and reflects houses
immediately contingent to this: all
ranches exist in this area. There are
some two story set back further off road.
Planning Board asked for clarification on water lines, road
improvements, utility, poles and contribution to road improvements. Mr. Schepis: no requirement under RSIS that lists off-site. This is governed by MLUL. He didn’t disagree about improvements across
frontage but indicated the others issues are off-site as governed by MLUL.
Applicant requested to review the inconsistencies and to
respond to concerns voiced this evening.
Applicant requested application to be carried to: to September 27th
with notice provide. Extension of time
granted on record by Mr. Schepis to September 30th.
Motion made by:
Seconded by: Art Daughtry
Roll call vote: Art Daughtry, Russ Lipari, Gary Lewis,
John Visco, Ladis Karkowsky, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty
PMN07-01 WILLIAM IELLIMO – 30 Changebridge Rd. – B:
82. Lot: 8.01 – Two minor subdivision w/variances ACT BY:
Application Carried to: August 9, 2007 with notice preserved
in a motion by John Visco, Seconded by: by Larry Hines - unanimous
Motion to go to closed session for legal made by Gary Lewis,
Seconded by: Tony Speciale, unanimous
Upon return, motion to adjourn unanimously made by Larry
Hines, Seconded by: Russ Lipari.
Linda M. White