PB Minutes 10-11-07 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2007

ROLL CALL

Mr. Rosellini                - Present                                Mr. Karkowsky - present  

Ms. Kull - Present                                                Mr. Daughtry- absent

Ms. Nielson - Present                                   Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari- absent                                   Mr. Lewis - present

Mr. Speciale (alt#1)- absent                     Mr. Hines - present

Mr. Witty (alt#2) – present

Also present:

Stan Omland, PE

Michael Carroll, Esq.

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Mrs. White indicated she received a request for rezoning of the properties located off of Rt. 287/Main Road.  The lands consist of property owned by Judge Folgelson and Nino Giancanterino.  He has no lands accessing River Road on this final request for aged restricted units.  No request on numbers requested.   She indicated she has just received this as a complete filing, it is referred out to Joe Burgis, AICP, and she will discuss scheduling and reporting on this but doubtful it will happen this year.  We are not under any time constraints on this matter.  Mr. Burgis will coordinate with Mrs. White. 

Gary Lewis: asked if the proposals had been received so that we can get started on giving the budget to the township, voicing concerns on not being able to get the funds we need to at minimum update the land use and housing element of the Master plan. 

(Deborah Nielson entered)

Mrs. White indicated the budget and next year’s board professionals is listed on November 8th agenda.  Mr. Burgis indicated he would have his proposals early next week.  Mr. Karkowsky asked the Master Plan subcommittee to meet and discuss the costs so that the budget can be finalized ASAP.  Mrs. Nielson indicated she is concerned on this issue of getting adequate funds to address the Planning Board concerns.  A meeting will be coordinated with Gary Lewis, Deborah Nielson, Ladis Karkowsky on this after proposals received.   Discussion ensued on what would need to be done, mentioning Land Use Element, Housing Element and changes to zoning ordinance to address redevelopment/planning issues for the future of the community.

   

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Noted:  Secretary noted that the Planning Board is carrying the following application to the agenda of October 25th with notice preserved.

PSPP/FC/PMN07-08 Keating, Wm – 137 Rt. 202 – B: 51, L: 33 & 28 –

Prel/final site plan/minor subdivision with variances for medical office

Carried to: October 25th with notice preserved in a motion made by: John Visco

Seconded by: Marie Kull 

Roll call vote: Unanimous

PLANNING BUSINESS

GI Auto – Review of Draft Ordinance/uses  - Carried from 9-27-07

Mr. Burgis summarized that his memo reflects comments and concerns of the Planning Board as to what uses may be permitted on site.  This draft ordinance identifies where in the codebook these ordinance amendments would apply, and also calls out all the different uses that may fit in this area, ranging from big box retail to age restricted to self-storage to hotel/retail and hotel/retail/housing mix.  The code was designed to be consistent with MLUL.  The Master Plan has to be amended to respond to these details.  Some of those details being the intensity of use, the concern and recommendations as to access to site, principally requiring access from Rt. 46, and the prohibition of exit movement on Old Bloomfield Avenue.

There are some areas that still need to be clarified and addressed.  For example, in one instance, big box retail, the horizontal distance for a building may differ when we review the different dimensions, since there are different lineal distances for certain uses.

Also another area needing resolution is the imposition of the 6’ standard for landscaping aisles.  He indicated he selected this standard since he felt it worked, requiring landscaping around perimeter and foundation plantings with this 6’ area.  He indicated there is no magic to the number, and in this regard this 6’ is subjective.  He is comfortable with 6’, but indicated that this number could be increased, noting no problem with doing that.

He indicated he also imposed a maximum requirement of wall mounted signage for commercial buildings, and that he felt that the frontage and height of building could support a sign of at 100 sq. ft., feeling this size suitable and reasonable for size of façade.  He indicated, though, there is no magic to this number.  That the number can be less, but he feels the number is reasonable.

As to the off-street parking requirements, although he made specific references in this draft, the residential component would have to have the reference to compliance with RSIS standards.  Parking standards for non-residential is slightly different than current code.  He is comfortable with the parking numbers he proposes, and he is concerned about the existing parking standards being different, and feels this may be an appropriate time to address our existing parking numbers to make them all consistent, but finalized with the numbers he proposed as being adequate.  At minimum, those uses existing with parking numbers should be changed to match this if we go forward. 

He continued on the discussion of height standards for the various uses, and feels the height is in line with board’s input.  As to rooftop heights, and concerns about rooftop, the 15’ is needed to address multi-family resident and hotel, but did lower the height on non-residential use.

He indicated it should be noted that any development on this site would require a traffic study.

He indicated another area that was important was to ensure adequate buffers from the existing residential neighborhood.  The standard was supposed to be 100’ off Rt. 46 vs 50’ and the draft will be corrected to reflect this.  He is and maintaining 200’ from Maple Avenue.

Deborah Nielson:  sees that some of her concerns have been responded to and/or address, but asked why on pg. 5 the acreage is 20 acres while in another section, the acreage for development requires 35 acres, why is one different?  Mr. Burgis indicated they have to be changed all to the 35 acres. 

Ms. Nielson continued with asking how this signage proposed compares with our current sign ordinance and is concerned if there is the possibility of it being inconsistent.  Mr. Burgis will double check the signage proposed, along with our current code requirements.   

She continued onto Pg. 6, I wanting clarification that the parking calculations for the landscaping and garden area are contained with the entire footprint of the building.  This area should be further clarified.   

Then on Pg. 8, Ms. Nielson voiced concern on the height of building at 4 stories and 48’ wanting assurances that the apartments would be able to be built within this area. Mr. Burgis indicated he took 11’ ceilings for residential component, and is comfortable with the number.

Ms. Nielson indicated she has concerns with the parking numbers required under an RSIS standard since she lives in a condo and although it complies with code, the parking is not adequate.  She questioned the possibility of putting in an additional sentence about township requiring additional parking spaces?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  replied that this is difficult since there is case law that supercedes us on this issue, and that this matter is best served under a site plan review process.

She continued to page 10 – She indicated she see that the hotel would be 6 stories but would prefer that it is promoted to be developed closer to Rt. 46 since this area has a recessed topography, acknowledging the housing component would be four stories overall.  

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  you can mandate that the tallest structure have a maximum and minimum setback to achieve that goal to encourage placement to make sure it goes in a location.  Deborah Nielson:  would want this located away from residential use.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  he explained how it is done, and gave several examples.  He indicated there is a 200’ setback from Maple.

Ms. Nielson asked that with the mixed use, we would want a village type environment, and although one of the uses is daycare, it doesn’t mention adult care, and is this use compatible?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  agreed it would be and would add this use also.

Deborah Nielson indicated she would like to see the inlands at 9’, explaining why it is better voicing concerns about plowing snow, killing vegetation and the larger aisles add more protection to site landscaping.

Gary Lewis asked if we also should take into consideration with a development of this size, wording to ensure we add environmentally sensitive verbiage to minimize impact to area?  He feels this is a rapidly growing movement and he wouldn’t hesitate to put this in as a ‘feel good’ encouragement.  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  it is a good idea.

Gary Lewis:  we should put it in as a wish list design standard (i.e. roof top gardens or solar panels).  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  can provide language for next meeting.

Deborah Nielson asked for clarifications for issues under pg. 13, item K4.  Referring to parking standards and changing them, and questioned the difference in retail numbers.  This code recommends 4 per 1,000.  Restaurants use requires 1 for 150 sq. ft.  Restaurants are more intense than regular.  Mr. Burgis indicated these numbers should be recognized differently since it is a mixed-use development concept proposal.  Adding we have to provide master plan text and in that we will point out why it indicated as such in this ordinance vs other parking standards and other zones.  Again, we have to address our parking ordinance standards.  Deborah Nielson indicated that she just wanted assurances that these numbers not be considered for the entire community.  John Rosellini:  indicated this is a brand new zone.

Deborah Nielson:  just wanted to make sure these standards will not apply anywhere else in community.

Larry Hines asked about hotels and stories.  Mr. Burgis indicated hotel would be 6 stories.  Mr. Burgis also indicated he would change all of the acreage requirements to 35 acres, and would also add the verbiage for environmentally sensitive development, and would review and update all the other changes discussed earlier.

Opened to public

Sylvia Wallace, 16 Maple:  with a retail box design, what happens to groundwater.  Stan Omland, PE:  in our ordinances and as required under State of NJ regulations, there are strict standards for water standards and these standards ensure there would not be flooding.  He explained.  When Ms. Wallace voiced concerns about some of the drainage, she sees projects flooding down roads now.  Mr. Omland explained these were old projects and the new regulations address those problems that did occur.

She indicated that if Lowe’s ultimately does develop, she has concerns with high lighting; noise, sound, and trucks need to know that when delivering to make sure that the neighbors aren’t affected. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  this ordinance has the lighting standards to address concerns, and we can handle a lot of these concerns during a site plan review process where we can regulate controls and hours of operation, but noted it is better if the town adopted an ordinance with town-wide hours of operation if we are challenged. 

Art Webber, 3 John Street:  asked for clarification on acreage.  Mr. Burgis indicated the ordinance would be corrected to reflect all uses must have 35 acres, explaining area along river mandating depths and width to this, and the addition of requiring a 200’ buffer along Maple Avenue which cannot be touched.  These two large areas will permanently require buffers. 

Mr. Webber asked where exit is for Rt. 46.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  applicant presented some preliminary sketches.  Will supply info.

Wanted the record to reflect that the house near GI auto was represented to be demolished and this should continue to be in the record.  Further, everyone knows this area is super congested and that they deal with trucks daily.  The already have Home Depot, and are not looking for more traffic, not less.  Big box bring big lights, and vibrations.  In hot weather, always leave trucks running.  Vibrations do come thru the ground, and you can feel it 100 of feet away.  More contractors and pick up trucks coming thru the residential street.  Have no idea of what taxes are coming in?  Would prefer aged restricted and self-storage. 

As far as hotel, it isn’t the same as motel, but residents always voiced concerns about this area have this type of use, and would prefer age-restricted use with self-storage.  Also like the village style concept to bring neighbors together vs big box.

Pat Bucco:  would like to add concerns about traffic situation.  Right now the traffic is horrendous and everyone takes a short cut thru Margaret, Van Winkler, going down Margaret Drive to Rt. 80.  Whatever goes here, this is largest concern, and lately there are a lot of young families with young children and concerns as it relates to cars and shortcuts that are being taken for Rt. 80.  This should be addressed to see if they could reroute this type of traffic and/or make it a one-way street to deal with this issue.  Also noted concerns that the Fairfield Fire Department uses this same access, and doesn’t use Hook Mountain.  They go down Margaret Drive and is worried someone will get killed.  

John Rosellini: why don’t we talk about this with Fairfield.

Ladis Karkowsky:  indicated we did discuss traffic concerns and calming devices to assist residents at a subcommittee level.  John Rosellini:  ordinance would have to be very clear that the only access is from Rt. 46, acknowledging we need to look at how off-site parking would be considered.  Chapin, Van Winkle is cut thru.  Maple, John, and Margaret are of concern. 

Stan Omland, PE:  the entrance was further west opposite of Home Depot, but DOT is sole arbitrator of this.  There is a plan out there somewhere.  Mr. Webber:  they talked about enlarging and adding a third lane.  Just like Home Depot and exit on Bloomfield Avenue, sure there is enough influence at township level to address this.  Mr. Omland responded that the township and board did express this to DOT but that DOT makes decision, doesn’t believe there will be a widening of bridge, but feels it will be more likely on the bend.

John Rosellini:  concern noted again that right now this is an industrial zone.  What this ordinance does is to make sure access is off Rt. 46 not Bloomfield. 

Silvia Wallace:  question on Tiffany buildings being built.  What is use?  Ms. White indicated they are all office use.  She asked if we could ask them to try and use Bloomfield for exit.

John Swager:  hear things about stores, big box, hotel, and reiterate what is said, the only situation that works for the residents on this property is the senior housing.  Taxes goes to school, no drain on school:  it is a win/win.  Trucks are in home depot waiting for delivery, and same thing will happen in a big box store.  Trucks are idling in Maple Avenue all night long.  We don’t have a police force larger enough to enforce this.  Impact of traffic from home depot, did everything to keep them off Bloomfield Avenue.  They did a great job.  They still come down.  Whatever you plan for bridge must be viewed for emergency access and nothing else.  Do something at end of Maple to put in a cul de sac. 

John Rosellini:  there are residents for and against everything.

Ladis Karkowsky:  as far as age-restricted use, this is listed as a possible use.   

Mr. Swager:  understands we are trying to put in a series of permitted uses, but everyone in neighborhood is saying:  either go with senior housing, even maybe a hotel but all hate the fact of having a big box or mall in there, and it is in there as part of the plan.  Would like to see only aged restricted allowed.

Gary Lewis:  if a town only put aged restricted housing in there, then if a builder wanted something different, it would be at the Board of Adjustment where there is no control for what we are trying or the site remains a junkyard.  Purpose here is to try and control it here.  One issue is site plan.  Have to make sure they are neighbor friendly.  John Rosellini:  we never expected to see all these uses.  The planner brought that option in place.  Gary Lewis:  stressed that the aged restricted housing is back on list, that the Planning Board did listen to folks and reacted to their needs.   If housing, we would also see the affordable number addressed.

Mr. Swager:  indicated that there are several homes in the area that have some stacking issues.  He was advised to send it to Mrs. White for resolution.

Joyce Brauauchle – some citizens did not want the cul de sac?  Do you take a vote?  If 35 families want it and one or two don’t, how does that work?  John Rosellini:  we had petitions and were always concerned about traffic and took a long time reviewing this area.

Deborah Nielson:  Mr. Barile communicated with state and for whatever reason, there were roadblocks.  We do have control over traffic calming devices.  She will bring this up at Township Committee level (like speed bumps).  John Rosellini: Perhaps we should also notify Fairfield about emergency services.  Mr. Eggers indicated it was noted before, and that the rules are no different for emergency vehicles. 

Mr. Webber:  as to senior housing, Planning Board has received a request for age restricted housing, need is there.  Par Troy also zoned for aged restricted housing. 

Deborah Nielson:  noted that we are trying to clean up 35 acres, with 20 acres being junkyard and having been working on this for a long time.  She noted that she is in favor of village concept and aged restricted, not in favor of big box, not just Lowe’s, but also any big box, stating she doesn’t feel it appropriate, but was on the short end of the vote on this issue.  This matter will go to the Township Committee.  This ordinance is a recommendation and needs to be adopted at that level.  Because we have an applicant promoting Lowe’s, this board felt we should control it, and she feels that if the applicant was aggressive enough to pursue this, they would go to Board of Adjustment to develop the site and she is trying to protect the residents in the area with control at the Planning Board level.  She would definitely prefer multi-use and would try and give them a number of options that may be or is as equally attractive as a box retail so they would choose this vs a Lowe’s.

John Rosellini:  the larger issue is we would have control on site work.  Deborah Nielson: but boxed retail has more truck idling and trucking, more than that of a mixed use.   We are already looking at way to relocate loading docks and provide buffers to maintain residential base, this is something that bothers her personally and is a unique opportunity for lands on Rt. 46 and we will live with this for a long time so is mindful of all site issues and notes we are proceeding cautiously. 

Marie Kull:  totally opposed to box retail use.

John Rosellini:  reviewed changes, reminding Mr. Burgis that we want statements on use of green building technology; that the total acreage requirement would be 35 acres, and that we want assurances that all loading stages be set away from a residential component and that we address the affordable housing component.  The other issues mentioned we can then address in a site plan review process.

No further public.  Motion to close to public made by:  Larry Hines, Seconded by: Marie Kull  Unanimous

Gary Lewis:  on this last subject which came up several times, regardless of what COAH COAH rules ultimately say, why couldn’t we for the age restricted portion, require a set-a-side number indicating perhaps we should consider a 20% set-a-side, knowing this ratio might change when COAH updates their rules.  Mr. Burgis:  until we hear from COAH, we can support 20%.  Gary Lewis:  would hate a site plan application that fell outside this window, and would want this component added.  Mr. Burgis will add this.

Motion to update the ordinance to reflect changes recommended and discussed made by Larry Hines, Seconded by:  John Visco to move this ordinance to the Township Committee for introduction.  Roll call vote: John Rosellini, Marie Kull, Larry Hines, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Leigh Witty, Ladis Karkowsky  - Yes

Deborah Nielson abstained since she will vote on Township Committee, feels this is a good report but not happy with the big box retail use. 

Mrs. White explained process.  Mrs. Nielson is hoping for Oct. 23rd meeting at Township Committee where Mr. Burgis will review this ordinance with Township Committee.  If this doesn’t occur, will look toward a November 1st Township Committee meeting.  The residents will be notified.  The draft ordinance will be available sometime next week and chairman thanked the residents for working with the Town on this rezoning issue.

PGDP07-15 – Pine Brook Realty, 12 Rt. 46, B: 160, L: 4 –rezoning request for FAR% increase – Carried from 9-27-07

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP summarized his meeting with developer, indicating he suggested use of a one-way circulation system which results in reduction of aisle width and they would be able to pick up 18’ along the site, along with getting additional amenities along street.  Recommended considering widening sidewalk along front to make more pedestrian friendly.  Suggested talking to adjoining property owner to provide a combined access drive that would allow a more complimentary entryway to the site and would pick up some more landscaping on that side of property, but feels he would still have to shrink the building.  He feels some of this changes would move the FAR closer to current FAR number permitted.  The plan displayed this evening was not submitted to him so he has not reviewed it.

Mr. Schepis:  reminded Planning Board that the purpose of this hearing is a referral for petition to modify Pine Brook motel to increase FAR ration presently permitted.  Plan shows an FAR of less than 33%.  The FAR on adjoining site has an FAR of 33%.  This FAR proposed is in line with corner property.  Purpose of this request is to make request to eliminate density.  Would prefer Planning Board vs Board of Adjustment for site plan review process.  There are C variances for impervious coverage.  This rendering calls for less than prior plan.

Steve Schepis, Esq.

John Monturi, Project Architect Previously sworn

Reviewed decreasing size of building, increasing landscaping, the numbers last time was about 96%, now at 89.6%; building area was around 65,000, building coverage is 59,594 which means 32.8 FAR building coverage.  It was 35 or 36% previously.  This is a major reduction.  Plan reviewed.  Beige area and planter area discussed.  The way this was increased as well as strips of additional parking, there is a continual parking of plantings along length of property and along Rt. 46, also added 8’ of plantings.   Plan shows 8’ landscaping aisle on Rt. 46 side and 6’ aisle on Bloomfield Avenue, which amounts to an increased 14’ of green area on both sides of property.  By moving property in, they still net 277 car spaces that trans

Also on plan, added more islands to get more trees in front and back.  Also addressed the concerns on back of building which was a Planning Board issue.  He developed a preliminary concept, which reflected the back of Bloomfield trying to create a façade that is pleasing.

He reviewed the landscaped area, which would be typical of entire center displayed.  May also provide more paver area to allow more seating in one area.  In addition, the front elevation is higher, and the Bloomfield area elevation will be less than Rt. 46.  Rendering reviewed. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  will there be dual entrances?  Mr. Monturi indicated affirmatively. 

He explained his design provides for a recessed dumpster areas integrated into the façade.  By recessing them in, they are part of the architecture and they can also use a gate or fence to match façade.

The rendering reflects it will not be a strip mall.  The intention is that the restaurant would have an entrance and/or a larger store, and/or a common entrance to the center of the mall where there may be little stands within the shopping area.  This is unknown just speculative at this time.  The other item is that instead of having two separate entrances, they will align it with the aisle between the buildings so that there is one entrance off of Old Bloomfield Road. 

As to the entrance on Rt. 46, this is still subject to discussions with owners of adjacent property.  Right now, on Old Bloomfield, they will be aligned.  Intention is to divide center into numerous store, and depending on mix, size will depend on stores.  Sometime there is a larger anchor; sometimes there are smaller ones.  The better and nicer that the center looks as well as the layout, the better the tenants you will get.  This has to be something special and different and must have an access that is desirable, then you will get a better tenant. 

In conclusion, they will maximize greenery, and what is before Planning Board is something that will maximize greenery and provide adequate parking.  John Rosellini:  what type of tenant would be considered?   Mr. Monturi indicated that he doesn’t feel this is an area for a supermarket, but more of a 2,000 to 9,000 sq. ft. tenant.    Marie Kull: on the building layout shown, would each of these building house a store?  Mr. Monturi indicated that what happens in designing these centers, as you start to get tenants and tenants come on board, things have to change slightly.  In some cases, two tenants share a certain architectural element, and some cases, these elements have to stretch, so it will be a modification as tenant comes on board.  What doesn’t happen is that the design will not change on Old Bloomfield, and it will not become a blank wall.    It does happen that certain tenants want a particular façade, but the developer works with them.  What happens in these cases, is finding a solution to making it happen. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  this development of architecture has to be a control at Planning Board and Design Review Committee. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  What happened with impervious?  Mr. Schepis responded:  89.6% from 96% where ordinance provides 55%.   83% exists today. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  we are talking about an FAR% increase.  If you increase the FAR%, we philosophically accept the impervious and building lot coverage reflected. 

Gary Lewis:  not as wrapped up in FAR as the thing that we should sink or swim the project on, but concerned about potentially changing the FAR for this entire section of Rt. 46.  In order to avoid spot zoning, feels we should not only see the property to the east, but would want to see the FAR and related issues all the way down the strip so we make sure there is no back door open to take advantage of FAR%.  Think this is fair for developer to present data. 

Mr. Schepis:  pointed out that FAR not in compliance on adjacent site, that there was parking, building, and impervious variances, and that these proofs have to be supported and if a developer comes in down the road, they have to meet standards of proof.  This is still a hurdle to meet on this project.  Even if you change the FAR, you still have control to regulate any of these sites.  Some counties in Morris County have no FAR percentages.  Applicant can do the analysis for Planning Board.

Stan Omland, PE:  parking ratio discussed summarizing some concerns on parking, indicating that recognizing national retail justifies better architecture, but find these users want 5,000 sq. ft. They might not be short on that end, but restaurant uses may be a concern, and this would be a use that would create a significant shortfall of the site.  There is no off-site parking.  He referenced Rt. 10 project and that he will look at their parking ratio, but this site fills up completely.  They are expanding parking lot to pick it up.  Make sure there are enough parking spaces since all the other controls are related to this.  When board looks at intensity, you look at what is needed for parking, and if you put a restaurant, you have to put in a furniture store to offset high demand for restaurant.  Applicant indicated ‘whatever happens’ but you need to worry about those uses like restaurants, are you going to have 50% or 0 restaurants on site.  He feels the Planning Board will have to come up with number.  You want that vitality of this type of use.  Should restaurants be allowed, they should be few.

Deborah Nielson:  indicated she visited shops at Union Hill, so curious to know parking numbers.   In back was number of dumpsters in disarray, utility boxes, recycling boxes, understood it backs up to woods.  Caution that recycling has to be taken into consideration.  Rendering looks nice, but concerns are about parking, and we held Montville Inn to parking standards and it proved to be a good decision based on what is going on at this site.  Feels this is clearly an improvement and still think this area can take some height, and modify the footprint on first floor – a personal comment at her level.

Mr. Monturi indicated you would have trash, electric, etc. but that doesn’t mean it has to be tacked onto the back of the building.  You don’t need all garbage and you can screen and plantings with electric, which are smart things to do to deal with the Planning Board goals. 

Marie Kull:  this will not be as large as Union Hill.  Some of the restaurants are large there. 

John Rosellini:  what is specific parking counts?  Mr. Schepis: 4.65 per 1,000 sq. ft.  John Rosellini:  the fact that you grant FAR does not affect other variances.  Don’t think there is enough landscaping but the issues we are talking about are site plan issues.  Would want to see the study and all of the issues, and the public and board have to understand there is a lot more that this site has shown to be meet. 

Deborah Nielson indicated she would want to see the entire B3 zone studied down to Chapin Road.   She is concerned about any domino affect – how does this fit in with overall theme? 

John Rosellini:  can we make something condition to ensure?  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  if variance from conditional use, then you are before Board of Adjustment again.  You can get a c variance with conditional use as long as it is not a conditional use condition.

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  retail is a permitted use in the zone now.  Would be best served to retain jurisdiction since we have greater ability to do site plan review than zoning board.  Problem with FAR with making it a conditional use is you go to Board of Adjustment for any deviation.  You can create height, building, and setback requirements to make sure that we get the intensity of use to control site, then we can continue to retain jurisdiction.  He indicated that instead of imposing an FAR, perhaps we should consider not providing one, but to provide regulatory control to ensure a certain level of intensity, make sure green space, parking, and there are no oversized buildings.  Right now we are talking about building coverage of 32% where we allow 20%.  Deborah Nielson:  where is stormwater management?  Mr. Monturi:  underground.

John Rosellini:  what has been shown includes the car wash.  See nothing to prevent the remaining stores to merging and develop similar concepts.  Deborah Nielson:  not opposed, but concerned about impact in area. 

Gary Lewis:  you have an FAR less than 2x your building coverage and two story, you are never allowing someone to build a 2 story in excess of building lot coverage.  An FAR of 35, you have a built out limitation; acknowledging 2 stories and 20% building coverage, and FAR is under 40%, don’t want to sound blasé about it by changing FAR, but do not want to see FAR wiped out, feeling the answer is in seeing the impact on this corridor.  We would be remiss if we didn’t make sure back door is closed.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  can’t look at this in a vacuum agreeing.

Thomas Monturi:  The car wash was discussed, and realistically looked at this, and is more involved with trying to clean up site by eliminating car wash and decreasing traffic flow.

John Rosellini:  no doubt we can work with the numbers in ordinance with the possibility of adjustment.  Mr. Schepis:  applicant is not asking to change any of the bulk requirements in the current code, just requesting FAR% changes.

This matter was carried with notice to November 8th agenda. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  he would develop a draft ordinance which is paid for by the applicant so there is no cost to the township.  The applicant must provide the data requested to allow Mr. Burgis to review all concerns and finalize any draft ordinance changes on this issue.

Data must come from applicant and Mr. Burgis must get it to the Planning Board before the hearing by the end of October.

Opened to public…

Ladis Karkowsky:  reviewed rezoning request for public noting the request is for changes with the FAR and if such a change occurs, then this site would be subject to the Planning Board for site plan issues.

Mr. Burgis explained what a FAR (floor area ratio) is.  Mr. Burgis explained the measure of intensity of use of the proposed floor space vs total lot area, giving examples and board jurisdiction. 

Mr. Eggers:  what is the parking requirement for retail use.  Mr. Burgis:  You need 1 for 180 sq. ft.  Although it may sound like a minor deficiency, noted Mr. Burgis, when you look at losing 1 space per 1,000, it adds up. 

John Swager:  think this is a good idea for the area, and understand the concerns on traffic and ground water and traffic.  Concern is that we have unique opportunity to get rid of a bad element in this town.  We should move it along as quickly as possible. 

Closed to public

Motion to carry with notice preserved made by Larry Hines, Seconded by: Marie Kull unanimous

Towaco Ordinances – Estimate for Determination of Wetlands

Linda White indicated she sent a request for proposals providing for: PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES relating to the fact that Montville is working on a Master Plan for the Towaco center area.  The parking lot design was forwarded to each of the companies contacted, with a request to know whether or not this design is realistic.  Therefore, I asked for a proposal that would be address our concern of whether or not development of the property into a municipal parking lot is feasible.   The quote was to provide a graphic representation of the approximate wetlands limits of block 39, lot 34.02, within 200 feet of the proposed parking area shown on the Burgis layout based on a site inspection and other available resources.  The Township also requests the environmental professional to offer an opinion as to the likely resource classification of the on site wetlands and the anticipated transition area requirements associated with the wetlands.

Mrs. White indicated copies of the three proposals are before members and are as follows: 

Laura Newgard @ Ecolsciences  Quote $2,500 received 10-10-07

David C. Krueger @ Environmental Technology:  Quote $900 received 10-9-07

John Peale, PKI - $1,650 received 10-10-07

Discussion ensued.  It was moved that we request that the Township Committee allocate $2,500 to Ecolsciences since we have worked with this company before, and the work they propose responds to the concerns and needs to further Towaco Center Master Plan and parking lot development study.

Motion made by:  John Rosellini, Seconded by: Deborah Nielson

Roll call vote: Unanimous

Fence ordinance –Referral from Township Committee 

Mrs. White indicated that the fence ordinance was introduced.  The ordinance is as originally drafted and we need to make a final recommendation on whether or not these amendments should be adopted.

Motion made by: John Visco

Seconded by: Larry Hines 

Roll call vote: Marie Kull opposed; John Rosellini, Leigh Witty, Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Larry Hines yes

WAIVERS

PMISC07-34 Servo Systems – 115 Rt. 202 – B: 51, L: 28 – Existing tenant adding 3,000 s.f. of office space to existing 2,100 s.f. Office space for a total of 5,100 s.f. Office; existing warehouse/manufacturing for robotics equipment of 13,144 sf. (Apple Partners)

Linda White indicated this was received today, is located in the Woodmont Properties/Apple Partners site we just approved expansion of parking lot on.  Is an existing tenant who we approved some time ago and is now expanding his office space by an additional 3,000 sq. ft.

Motion to approve made by John Rosellini, Seconded by: Larry Hines

Roll call vote: unanimous

RESOLUTIONS

None

CORRESPONDENCE

None                     

MINUTES

Minutes of 9-27-07 - Eligible:  John Rosellini, Deborah Nielson, Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, Larry Hines, Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty

Motion to approve made by Larry Hines , Seconded by: John Rosellini 

Roll call vote: unanimous

Subcommittee Minutes of 10-4-07 – Deborah Nielson, John Rosellini, John Visco, Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari

Motion to approve made by: John Rosellini

Seconded by: Ladis Karkowsky

Roll call vote:  unanimous

INVOICES

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $30, $60, $30, $120, $30, $30, $90, $30, $30, $30, $60, $90, $30, $990, $30, $60, $30, $30

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $120, $660, $300

Burgis Associates – O/E for: $60, Trust for: $300, $540, $690, $360, $775

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $105

Motion to approve made by: Larry Hines 

Seconded by: John Visco

Roll call vote:  unanimous

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

None

OLD BUSINESS

FMSP/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 from 7-26-07 Roll call vote: Art Daughtry, Russ Lipari, Gary Lewis, John Visco, Ladis Karkowsky, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull  (John Rosellini & Deborah Nielson must certify to 7-26-07)

                                                                                                                ACT BY:  10-12-07 

Note: Marie Kull signed a certification indicating she is eligible to consider voting on this application, having certified to listening to the electronic recording of missed meeting of 7-26-07. 

John Rosellini and Deborah Nielson were not eligible and left meeting at this point.

Present:  Steve Schepis, Esq.

                 Charlie Osterkorn, PE

Note:  Board professionals sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq. 

Testimony offered:

Stephen Schepis, Esq. summarized application. 

Mr. Schepis indicated that they held a meeting on the improvements to Hook Mountain Road, and at direction of board, met with Mr. Mazzaccaro and Mr. Barile.  Memo of Oct. 9th of Mr. Mazzaccaro and Mr. Barile of Oct. 11th 2007 finds the consensus that water line extension is not mandatory but that the applicant would extend it along Hook Mountain and will service house on 8.02.  Applicant also agreed he would install services for 6 houses to tie into water system.   This tie in is not mandatory in Montville.  Applicant agrees to put in this infrastructure, and Mr. Barile and Mr. Mazzaccaro said it was sufficient.

Discussed with Township Attorney as to what the Planning Board could require. 

Mr. Osterhorn discussed revisions.  August 7, 07 last revisions.  Modification:  clarification of utilities on Hook Mountain Road.  Plans at present SP8 utility plan and will put water main on west side in shoulder area to facilitate service crossings to majority of houses on west side.  Approximately 6-7 new houses will be serviced and crossing at 8.02 and fire hydrant along with services to 8.;03.  In addition, propose a new envelope for 8.01, showing demo of existing dwelling and a new dwelling with 40x54’; propose to hook in sanitary sewer when it is built, and it may go to bid early spring.  Will use existing well or drill a new well.

Going to require side yard variances for 8.01.  Lots 8.02 and 8.03 offset to accommodate height of structure and side yards.  Variance for 8.01 is side yard combined.   Meet 20’ minimum but not the required combined side yards.  Irregular shaped lots due to house subdivided off.  Area where guardrail is, will contain wetlands, and will be conservation.  When you multiply 35% over lot, you can’t meet the combined side yards and nothing could be built.

The house that is present will be demolished.  Setback of existing house is 14’ and new home will be 50’ from dedicated ROW and will meet code.  Noted that this plan benefits the neighborhood and zone plan. 

Described wetlands and offered as conservation easement, so 90% will be conservation easement. 

Marie Kull:  yellow square on map, what is it?  Applicant indicates it coincides with footprint of house.  There is a back yard.

Mr. Schepis:  each one of these lots meet 5,000 sq. ft and is rectangle, and has buildable area.

Gary Lewis:  this plan is an improvement and think this is right approach as to rehab of existing house.  Currently existing dwelling is served by unpaved driveway encroaching on north side onto adjacent property and/or fence, should we not being doing something on this to condition that a driveway serving this new dwelling will meet setback requirements.  R27 requires 5’ and will agree with placement of this with lot 8.01. 

Deviation requested from slope compliance – SP3 revised 8-7-07.  Plan reflected 5,000 sq. ft. on lot 8.01 and in rear 20’ there are slopes in excess of 15-25% but when looking at 16 acre, it is less than 1% of lot, but it is in 5,000 sq. ft. and is over 27% so slight deviation and requesting variance here.  Only way to eliminate is to shift further towards Hook Mountain but that would require a variance.  This is a minimal amount of soil disturbance.  There is a total of 1300 sq. ft. vs the size of lot.  Mr. Omland:  it is a pocket of slopes, and this steep area is conducive to a walk out basement.  Mr. Burgis report suggested granting of variance to shift forward to make it more align in frontage. It was determined that Hook Mountain has some traffic and putting it closer to the road is not something that would be what board wanted, and to allow more area for turnaround/circular driveways in view of that is a better plan.  Applicant indicated that they took this into consideration and will put in circular driveways on lot 8.021 and 8.03.  These revisions required on subdivision plan. 

Gary Lewis:  house south of 8.01 is a 1 ½ story and assume developer will be building a 32’ Montville colonial.  This location of proposed home has an offset that you would not see a solid house wall on the immediate view of the adjacent southerly property. 

Also noted, the disturbance in view of the 15 acres being deeded to conservation is a far better beneficial plan vs detriment.

Mr. Osterhorn indicated that the cost of utility poles far exceeds improvements and they would not be removed.  Planning Board had no objection in view of other improvements proposed.

Gary Lewis:  if a sewer connection occurs, what happens.  Mr. Schepis:  the Board of Health requires that the sewer be tied in.  

Mrs. White asked if we shouldn’t require a developer’s agreement in view of water lien connection and the need to respond to any future affordable housing need. Mr. Schepis indicated that they are exempt.  It was decided that this issue would be deferred in a Developer’s Agreement in a form agreeable to Township Attorney.

Applicant indicated he will comply with professionals reports, other than the waiver being requested from installation of shade trees, curbing, frontage improvements, sidewalk and lighting.  No objection by Planning Board.

Gary Lewis:  is there a way to mark conservation easement visibly.  Mr. Omland indicated that there are new types of permanent markers that are flexible raised markers that everyone knows where they are.  Add a condition that conservation easement be marked by township engineer.    Applicant also stipulated that he would comply with all agency findings.  

Opened and closed to public in motion by made by John Visco, Seconded by: Marie Kull

Roll call vote: unanimous

Motion to grant preliminary and major subdivision, subject to granting of variances and waivers requested, compliance with all agency findings, DA and resolution of affordable housing needs by Township Attorney within this document, compliance with all professional reports, except for those specifically waived (roadway improvements), payment of all taxes, escrow, posting of bonds, if necessary, posting of conservation easement with markers subject to Stan Omland, PE review/approval after placement; revision of the subdivision plan to incorporate circular driveways and any other revisions required by all agencies and/or professionals as stipulated.  Granting of a diminious waivers from RSIS by applicant to State of NJ.  Normal applicable conditions of major subdivision approval

Motion made by: John Visco

Seconded by: Marie Kull

Roll call vote: Marie Kull, Leigh Witty, John Visco, Larry Hines,Gary Lewis, Ladis Karkowsky - Unanimous

NEW BUSINESS                                                                                 

PSPP/FC/PMN07-08 Keating, Wm – 137 Rt. 202 – B: 51, L: 33 & 28 –

Prel/final site plan/minor subdivision with variances for medical office – Notice Acceptable and carried to: October 25th agenda of Planning Board.  Time to act acceptable at 2-08-08

RESCHEDULED EARLIER IN MEETING TO OCTOBER 25, 2007

CONCEPTS

None

Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion made by: Gary Lewis, Seconded by: Larry Hines

Respectfully submitted,


Linda M. White

Secretary

Absent w/explanation

Absent w/explanation

Absent w/explanation

signed certification

 

 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack