PB Minutes 7-26-07 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



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

Also present:

Frank Russo, PE

Michael Carroll, Esq.

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP

Hank Huesebusch, PE (for Woodmont Hearing)






            Linda White 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 change. 

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. 

Art Daughtry:  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. 

Russ Lipari:  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 Ordinance 

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

Linda White 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. Board polled:

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.

Fence Ordinance

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.

Discussion re:  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, John Rosellini

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 Lipari

Seconded by: John Visco

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 Lipari

Seconded by: John Visco

Roll call vote: unanimous


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: Larry Hines 

Seconded by: Art Daughtry 

Roll call vote: unanimous



Note:  Board professionals sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.


PMS06-23 WOODMONT 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 BY: 8-29-07

Note:  Henry Huelsebusch PE present

Joseph Vena, Esq.

Requests:  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.

Witnesses:  Frank 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

Site location 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. 

Exhibit marked: Sheet 3 marked in as colorized site plan marked in as A1 dated 7-26-7 sheet 3 of 5 Grading Plan

Plan reflects 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.

Variances needed: 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 access.

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. 

Board professional 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.

 Requested:  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.

Photos of existing site marked in 4 photos marked A2 dated 7-26-07. 

Photos 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 shrubs. 

28.5% impervious 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.

Mr. 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. 

Ladis 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 Visco

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.   

New tract

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 & 7-12-07

                                                                                    ACT BY:  9-15-07 

Note:  Frank Russo present

Present:  Steve Schepis, Esq.

      Charlie Osterkorn, PE

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 agreed to.

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 existing rights.

Other two lots are conforming to zoning requirements. 

Steep slope 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

Discussed:  water 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.

Ladis Karkowsky:  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 confusion. 

Art Daughtry:  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. Schepis.

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 Health.

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. 

Leigh:  should 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 have. 

Art Daughtry:  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 additional relief.

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:  Larry Hines

Seconded by: Art Daughtry

Roll call vote: Art Daughtry, Russ Lipari, Gary Lewis, John Visco, Ladis Karkowsky, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty

NEW BUSINESS                                                                 

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


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.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

With explanation

With explanation


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack