PB Minutes 8-9-07 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



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






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


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                                                                                                                             




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.


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. 


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


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 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


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





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: 





Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion made by: 

Seconded by:

Respectfully submitted,

Linda White

Absent with explanation

Absent with explanation


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack