|
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
|
