|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road,
Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2007
ROLL
CALL
Mr.
Rosellini - absent Mr. Karkowsky - present
Ms.
Kull - present Mr.
Daughtry - absent
Ms.
Nielson - present Mr.
Visco - present
Mr.
Lipari - absent - present Mr.
Lewis - present
Mr.
Speciale (alt#1) - present Mr. Hines - present
Mr.
Witty (alt#2) - present
Also
Present: Stan Omland, PE
PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT
OF COMPLIANCE
Stated
Notice
on Carried Hearings: Board carried Iellimo hearing
was carried to: September 27th 2007 with notice preserved and time
to act extended. Motion made by: Marie
Kull Seconded by: Larry Hines Roll call
vote: unanimous
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION
Rezoning
@ GI Auto: Ms. Nielson who wasn’t present at the last
meeting indicated she wanted to discuss the GI auto site as it relates to the
aged restricted housing request of the EDC in that they requested Planning
Board to further consider putting this back on at planner’s level for review as
a possible use that may fit on this site.
She indicated this topic was discussed at their last meeting and that it
was a unanimous decision to request the Planning Board to reconsider putting aged
restricted housing on this site. She
indicated that at their meeting they conducted a lengthy discussion and there
were some good reasons put forth and asked the Planning Board to
reconsider: it is a unique piece of
property with 20 acres of useable land located off Rt. 46, near Interstates 80
and 280. She felt we would be remiss
without considering all feasible options on this tract and that the residents
want this use in this area and we should give their wishes some consideration
as to reviewing this use and continuing forward. These residents are concerned about retail vs residential traffic
on Old Bloomfield, and although our planner noted some concerns about aged
restricted housing and what would happen 15 years down the road, she feels he
was talking about this concern on a national level not as it applies to Morris
County or Montville. She noted many
residents in this town who want some affordable housing approached her, and
their options are limited beyond Campagna.
She feels there is a need in this township for this type of housing.
She
indicated she lives in a town home development, and for those that don’t live
in this type of development, these documents are very restricted and on file at
the State DCA. She feels that if we
were to require age-restricted housing and it is on file at DCA, it may be hard
to overturn DCA approvals. The fear
that these units may be released to market and we will have an influx of
schoolchildren is not really going to happen.
Her feeling is that although revenue generation is not a Planning Board
consideration, it is one at the Township Committee level. You receive more income from this type of
use than from retail. 2M vs ½ M is a
large differential that shouldn’t be ignored since taxes are rising. She would like the Planning Board to endorse
adding this use of aged restricted not as the only use but as one that should
be further considered. She would like
to see the Planning Board endorsed EDC’s recommendation and have this use
further studied.
Ms.
Kull agreed indicating she does not want to see another retail and feels it
will be too congested.
Mr.
Karkowsky discussed how this type of use would be handled on this site. Ms. Nielson indicated that even if it was
looked at as a conditional permitted use, but that our planner can develop some
options along this line. She indicated
concerns on the topo in this area, noting that if the site was developed with a
single story structure, you will see structures/air conditioning/vents, etc. on
roof. Her feeling is that this area can
take some height due to topo and lends itself to a mixed use like aged
restricted/retail, and would like to have Planning Board listen to the
residents and have this voice and their strong sentiments along this line go
forward.
Mr.
Karkowsky indicated there is no doubt there will be more discussions on this
area and more desires for uses in this area will be voiced. He indicated you have to have an open mind
to how to handle this, knowing you have to listen to our residents but also
have to look at this area as being cleaned up, and indicated that he didn’t
feel that there was anyone on the board completely opposed to the use, but that
the uses had to be narrowed down for further study. He indicated the current applicant indicated there was no market
in his opinion for aged restricted housing.
Discussed ensued on market driven uses and the testimony presented at
Township Committee at the time of the rezoning request, summarizing that
because this applicant went to another plan doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care
about what we want for our Montville, and not because we have an applicant
looking at what he wants.
Mr.
Karkowsky asked for Mr. Omland’s input on aged restricted housing at his level.
Mr. Omland indicated he believes from products in his office, his exposure to
the county, that active adult housing is experiencing an impact due to national
housing problems. A lot of building
industries are having a problem. Can’t
correlate declining because of decline in desire for this type of unit or is it
because of the State housing problem existing.
Rockaway has housing and that is in demand, but a lot of towns fear the
things Ms. Nielson noted. As to the
question if a DCA condition can be overturned, he is not sure if these
restricted can be changed, or if legislation can change these conditions or thewhat if’s as to their taking a position at some time in the future as to
declaring and adopting a bill that all aged income restrictions be lifted. There is a fear that would make aged
restricted housing go back to market, it may be unlikely but not definite. He reviewed everything and hasn’t seen any
reports on projections and this use is such a dynamic activity that no one can
put finger on where it is going to be.
It is regionalized more so than studies dictate. What applies to Rockaway may not apply in
other areas. He indicated that in the
market when it comes to builder’s risk if there is a tenant or lessee to
construct a Lowe’s and make a reasonable rate of return given clean up and
challenges, that someone may do that vs struggle with a 300 unit proposal. Discussion ensued on what the market is and
desire is, and what an owner can get, what is quickest and easiest. If someone says market is dried up on this
use though, he is not thoroughly convinced of that.
Mr.
Speciale agreed with this statement, indicating he doesn’t believe Montville is
dried up for this type of development and a lot of residents want to stay in
township and he found people disappointed since they couldn’t find a house in
Montville. There are still a lot of
residents that live in this township from over 40 years ago. People wanted something a little higher and
bigger.
Motion
to amend prior motion to leave this use in as a viable option for Planner to
study made by Deborah Nielson Seconded by: Tony Speciale
Roll
call vote: Marie Kull, Deborah Nielson, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty, Ladis
Karkowsky, Gary Lewis, Larry Hines -
yes; John Visco abstain
Is
there any kind of demographics that can be done to determine local area needs? Stan Omland, PE: would suggest that Mr. Burgis acquire some data from Morris
County Planning Board and perhaps look at aged restricted housing around and
see what was local vs out of town.
Concerns
in the past were that the units had prices so high, and people tend to want to
put extra monies in bank and these units are priced expensive. Gary Lewis indicated that this site would be
subject to affordable housing requirements, and thinks there are some
possibilities for this use in this town.
Ms.
Nielson indicated that he testified the prices would be $400,000 range at
Township Committee level. If there is a
density around 350 units, this revenue could support monies to have addition to
school if influx of school children.
She sees this area ideal for mixed use with some aged restricted housing
as a compromise, more of a village concept. Tony Speciale agreed questioning if
we should aged restrictions at all.
Revenue discussed.
EDC
- Mr.
Karkowsky voiced concerns about an EDC memo reviewing some concerns and
statements he felt should be clarified.
General discussion ensued. Main points being that it appears the EDC
feels strongly about the need to do the master plan now, and although there may
be some misunderstanding at their level, perhaps the focus of their energy
should be to lobby the Township Committee for additional monies in the upcoming
budget cycle to allow the Planning Board to do their work to face the
challenges of the township we are facing.
Mr. Karkowsky indicated that since there are two members on Township
Committee, perhaps this message could be brought back. Ms. Nielson indicated that she did get extra
monies into the Planning Board budget for us to operate, and noting the use of
escrow monies to get some of these studies finalized. The Planning Board again invited the EDC to participate by
attending some of our meetings; they are always welcomed. Mr. Karkowsky
indicated he would call the chair to discuss common interests.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
None
PLANNING
BUSINESS
Paver
Ordinance – Stan Omland, PE
Stan
Omland, PE summarized: Board voiced
concerns on additional layers at an expense to property owners that is
unreasonable, and he discussed these ordinances with Mr. Barile. The underlying storm water management that
exists today requires compliance and is not part of this proposal. Mr. Barile will probably say that he won’t
want stormwater management. This
ordinance does not alter existing code, and does gives bonus for new patio and
sidewalks. He indicated his discussions
with Mr. Barile indicated that he will respond top these concerns and deal with
reviews and feels this is not an issue.
Mr.
Lewis asked if the ordinance, stormwater management ordinance, has no threshold
in it that says 500 sq. ft. for example, how does this get applied
uniformly. Not sure where the line is
and not sure where line is for resident.
We give latitude to the engineer for other disturbances similar to steep
slopes, with certain exceptions, minor things like this should be exempt,
questioning if there shouldn’t be a baseline that would give to guidance on
this issue to potential residential applicants. Stan Omland, PE: is
confident that Mr. Barile would establish a policy and then use that as a
parameter. Gary Lewis: would like to reserve the right if a
reasonable threshold doesn’t appear to revisit this six month’s down the year
and if this Planning Board wants to make this decision now, then we may have to
consider amendments in future.
Ms.
Kull agreed she would like to see some form of number is established. Mr. Lewis indicated that up to a certain
number of coverage, the requirement of storm water be exempted area and that
way those residents interested in putting in these improvements would have some
guidance, mentioning the small patio or the resident who is seeking to replace
with a paver patio. He voiced concerns
about residents have to expend monies to a full topo and drainage plan being
done to certify compliance with stormwater management.
Mr.
Visco moved adoption of ordinance; seconded by: Marie Kull; Roll call vote:
Marie Kull, Deborah Nielson, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty, Ladis Karkowsky, John
Visco, Gary Lewis, Larry Hines
Secretary
asked to revisit this issue in six months to determine threshold and how it is
working.
Scheduling
Discussions/Status: Review of Retail component in
Industrial Zones for 9-27 agenda; GI Auto site study for 9-27 agenda; Towaco
Ordinances – schedule for October 11, 2007 agenda
Mrs.
White indicated that she coordinated these dates with Mr. Burgis to ensure we
get the postcard notices out to those residents within the areas affected
and/or to those residents that left their names with municipality when
something in this area is being discussed at Planning Board. Planning Board members voiced concerns about
not having the document prior to ten days when the post cards go out to
residents. Mrs. White indicated she
would coordinate with Mr. Burgis, but if there were something on for last
meeting of month, she would ask planner to have documents ready at first
meeting for members.
Fence
Ordinance – Mrs. White summarized that she put in those changes discussed at
the last Planning Board meeting as it relates to controlling deer fencing
allowing them on lots of 3 acres or more; to allow brown/black vinyl clad in
rear and side yards for residential zones and to put back in the code the
missing ‘no outdoor storage/fencing in front’ yards in industrial zones. Mr. Burgis reviewed and found acceptable. Motion to recommend adoption of fence
ordinance to incorporate these changes made by Gary Lewis, Seconded by: John
Visco Roll call vote: Deborah Nielson abstain, Marie Kull no,
Tony
Speciale, Leigh Witty, Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Larry
Hines - yes
Sign
Ordinance – update – Linda White indicated that she updated the sign ordinance draft into
one document with ordinance sections incorporating all the various comments
mentioned over the year. Mr. Burgis
indicated he would review with her at which point the document will be brought
back to Planning Board.
WAIVERS
PMISC07-25 MORE THAN JUST A
KENNEL –
235 Main Rd. – B: 59, L: 11 – boarding, training, day care, breeding &
grooming - 2-6 employees – hours of operation: Mon-Fri 8am-12pm & 4pm-6pm;
Sat 8am-12pm; Sun 10am-11am – house to be used only by owner of kennel
–signage/DRC
Present: Paul Rossetti – new owner
Linda
White summarized that this is a pre-existing use that has been purchased by a
new owner and operater, and that the applicant has agreed to meet with Design Review
Committee on signage proposed as well as comply with prior activity licensed by
the Board of Health. Mr. Karkowsky
asked for clarification as to location of kennel run. Run is in the side of home. No changes proposed for this
site. Mr. Lewis asked if owner is aware
of the conditions imposed on March 1989 -kennel license. Mr. Rossetti indicated he was. Motion to approve made by Gary Lewis,
Seconded by: Tony Speciale Roll call
vote: unanimous
Approved
subject to compliance with zoning permit/use letter, all agency findings and
signage reviews by Design Review Committee.
Planning Board does not want the sign back to Planning Board after
Design Review Committee unless there is an issue. Roll call vote: unanimous
PMISC07-26 Auction.com – 1 Mars Ct. – B: 3, L:
38.11 – office (1,078 s.f./warehouse (8,310 s.f.) for internet website hosting
business and service and distribution of vending machines – 5 employees –
7am-5pm Mon-Fri – signage to be lettering on door only – 1 van and 2 -14’ box
trucks to be left on site overnight owner has agreed that no further tenants
will be allowed to park vehicles overnight. (Urmston Realty)
Mrs.
White summarized that the owner of this warehouse has given an affidavit to the
township indicating that there will be no other tenant in this building to have
outside parking since the number of outside parking of vans/vehicles on this
site would be in excess of warehouse area rented. Approved unanimously in a motion by Deborah Nielson, Seconded by:
Gary Lewis subject to compliance with use letter, affidavit of no further
vans/commercial vehicles parked over night outside on this site.
RESOLUTIONS
PSPP/FC06-25
SHARPE HEALTH & FITNESS – Known as: Montville Health
and Wellness Center @ Indian Ln. – B:
32, L: 24.1 – Development of a 10,500 sq. ft. health and fitness center.
Eligible voters: John Rosellini, Russ Lipari, Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry,
John Visco, Larry Hines, Deborah Nielson
Motion
to approve by: John Visco
Seconded
by: Deborah Nielson
Roll
call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, Larry Hines , Deborah Nielson
PMS06-23
WOODMONT PROPERTIES – Apple
Partners – 115 Main Rd. - B: 51, L:
28 – Preliminary & Final site plan with variances parking lot expansion –
Eligible: Art Daughtry, Russ Lipari,
Gary Lewis, John Visco, Ladis Karkowsky, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh
Witty
Motion made by: Gary Lewis
Seconded by: Tony Speciale
Roll
call vote: Gary Lewis, John Visco, Ladis Karkowsky, Larry Hines , Tony Speciale
, Leigh Witty
CORRESPONDENCE
PMSP/F00-25-06-03
– BRIANNA ESTATES – Block: 125.05, L: 13/14 – Horseneck Road – Preliminary and Final
Major Subdivision – Dismiss without prejudice
Motion
by Deborah Nielson, Seconded by: Marie Kull to dismiss this application without
prejudice. Roll call vote: unanimous
MINUTES
Minutes 7-26-07 – Eligible: Art Daughtry, Russ Lipari, Gary
Lewis, John Visco, Ladis Karkowsky, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty
Minutes of 7-26-07 subcommittee: Eligible:
Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry, John Visco, John Rosellini
Motion
to adopt made by: Larry Hines
Seconded
by: Deborah Nielson
Roll
call vote: unanimous
INVOICES
Omland
Engineering – O/E for: $120, $300; $180; Trust for: $690
Michael
Carroll, Esq. – O/E for: $240; Trust for: $780, $30, $120, $30, $60, $60, $90,
$30, $30
Burgis
Associates – O/E for: $270, $450, $390; Trust for: $180, $540, $270, $480
Motion
to adopt made by: Larry Hines
Seconded
by: John Visco
Roll
call vote: Unanimous
LOI/DEP
NOTIFICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW
BUSINESS
PMN07-01
WILLIAM IELLIMO – 30 Changebridge Rd. – B: 82. Lot: 8.01 – Two minor subdivision
w/variances – Notice Acceptable ACT
BY: 9-27-07
Motion
to carry this application with notice preserved and time to act extended by
applicant to September 27th 2007 agenda approved in a motion made
by: Marie Kull, Seconded by: Larry Hines
Roll call vote:
Unanimous
CONCEPTS
None
Meeting
adjourned unanimously in a motion made by:
Seconded
by:
Respectfully
submitted,
Linda
White
|
