PB Minutes 10-25-07 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Mr. Rosellini - present                   Mr. Karkowsky - absent   

Ms. Kull - present                                                Mr. Daughtry - present

Ms. Nielson – entrance noted                     Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari – present Acting Chair       Mr. Lewis – entrance noted

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

Mr. Witty (alt#2) - present

Also present:  Stan Omland, PE

                                Joe Burgis, AICP

                        Michael Carroll, Esq.

                        Hank Huelsebusch, PE (for Keating Application)







Mr. Rosellini indicated that he noticed that the lighting behind the Home Depot sign is now orange.  He indicated that it used to be white but now it is bright orange.





PGDP07-14 Montville Lifestyle Center – Changebridge/Kramer – B: 138, L: 11 and 10.3 – Rezoning from I to Retail use

Mr. Rosellini abstained on following case

Ed Trawinski, Esq.  present representing applicant.  Zone change discussed.  He discussed the professional planner’s report which resulted in the finding that the request for change of zoning from industrial to zoning may be a considered ‘spot zoning’.  Acknowledging this, he asked if the Planning Board would be inclined to discuss rezoning on this site but enlarge the scope of the study along the Changebridge Road corridor to avoid any questions of a spot zoning matter.

Mr. Lipari felt it was spot zoning and discussed with the board extending the review of the corridor asking if the applicant would share in this study as to paying part of the fees.  Mr. Burgis indicated he would be happy to sit down and review the magnitude of the property and see what is involved with the extent of the study and come up with some pricing.  Mr. Visco agreed we should extend this study.  Mr. Speciale thinks it is a good idea.  Applicant indicated they will wait to hear from Mr. Burgis about scheduling a meeting to coordinate this. 

Planning Board Meeting of 12-13-07 to 12-12-07 schedule – Mrs. White asked if it would ok with board members to change the Planning Board previously scheduled meeting night from Thursday 12/13/07 to Wednesday 12/12/07.  Board members had no objection.  Secretary will cancel and provide new notice. 

Retail use/Industrial Zones – Proposed Ordinance Draft discussion (Note:  Mr. Rosellini abstained from these discussions)

Mr. Burgis identified 3-4 sections of the ordinance that has to be amended.  Amendments would be to identify not only retail sales of manufactured goods but including the words product manufacturing or warehousing on the property.  Footnote needs to be modified to reflect this.  Also pursuant to the board’s request he increased floor space to 10% of area or 2500 sq. ft. whichever is lesser.  Another change that needs to be discussed is that parking is 1 space for 100 sq. ft. of retail which is excessive standard.  Usually 5 for 5,000 and would suggest this adjustment is made and adjusted this in this ordinance especially since we are talking about existing buildings and it would be hard pressed to get any additional parking.

Motion to recommend to the Township Committee made by: Tony Speciale

Seconded by John Visco   Roll call:  unanimous

Mr. Rosellini abstained

Update:  Towaco Parking Lot Evaluation

Mrs. Burgis indicated that she received the environmental assessment of wetlands on the township property that was being considered for development of a parking lot for development of Towaco Center.  Mr. Burgis indicated he took this data and prepared sketches to reflect the overlay of the area of concern.  This overland with wetland data indicates that the parking numbers were reduced to 58 vs. 86 spaces.  Mr. Rosellini:  how many shared spaces are considered as it relates to parking sharing with the Transit? Mr. Burgis indicated his ordinance takes into consideration shared parking in ordinance, and did not take Transit parking into consideration in ordinance.  

Mr. Daughtry:  we had thought the Township would be able to manage the shared parking with but now NJ Transit indicated they wanted control.  He indicated he had hoped the use of this parking lot would respond to redevelopment of site and had hoped for control to assist in bringing Towaco Center to fruition.  NJ Transit indicated they wanted to maintain control.  Mr. Burgis clarified that there is sharing of spaces in development but not relative to transit parking lot sharing.

Mr. Burgis indicated that the Planning Board should finalize this ordinance at their December 12th meeting, and that we did not need to open the master plan on this element at that time.  He indicated he would prepare data to finalize State DCA grant.  Mr. Rosellini indicated there is an agreement on file with township about on revenue producing that may be due the Township since we contributed monies to this project (if Transit charged).  We should investigate this.  Mr. Daughtry indicated we should keep the one developer advised of what is going on in this area.  Mr. Lipari: the firehouse is in this area and wonder if this parking lot would be added.  Mr. Burgis:  not contemplating shared parking with other property.  (Note: Mr. Lewis present)

Mrs. White asked if the Growth Impact Ordinance would be developed the same night for discussion and Mr. Burgis indicated he would do so.  

Update Budget Discussions

Mr. Burgis explained proposal for 2008 Budget, indicating the Master Plan needs to be developed to deal with goals and objectives of our community.  He indicated he budgeted line item of $15,000 for this line item for next year.  The next line item is harder to determine the housing plan costs which he feels may run around $20,000.   The one issue is that COAH is rewriting everything and he has no idea if there will be changes in procedures and suggest that this amount be budgeted.  Down the road, we can readdress after COAH adopts.  The third is the comprehensive zoning ordinance.  He indicated it would be a cost of $35,000.  Standards would be developed for land development ordinance:  zoning ordinance, site plan, subdivision, parking, signs, administrative procedures, etc.  The ordinances would be structured in such a way to make it one comprehensive ordinance and would require a complete restructuring of the zoning ordinance making this code easier to read.  He suggested a subcommittee to go thru this proposal in a more detail form.

Mr. Daughtry:  for budgetary purposes, we support this, but when we get down to the nitty gritty, monies get cut.  What is the total cost for this work?  Mr. Burgis indicated it would be $75,000.  Mr. Lewis:  feels this proposal is too low.  Mrs. Kull:  why do you feel cost is low?  Mr. Lewis reiterated that the number of rezoning requests which we have been faced with makes your head spin and don’t feel land use is a pro-forma review process.  There is too much going on over last ten years to assume that Land Use plan hasn’t reached a point where it needs a thorough overall.  It needs to have a consensus of what the Township residents want, and there is a lot of work involved in this.  Mrs. Kull:  what is cut back?  Mr. Burgis:  original discussion was contemplating other elements, but we are only obligated to do housing and land use element.  He mentioned other elements (i.e. traffic, Recreation, Community Services).  His focus on the $75,000 was more on the limited areas where we are contemplating changes in possible land use patterns.  To do it soups to nuts, he indicated you are talking over $100,000.  Mr. Daughtry:  would suggest we ask for $120,000 with fall back to $75,000. Mr. Burgis indicated that the entire plan would take about 14 months, and suggests $120,000 over a two year period.  Mr. Lewis:  Land Use element has to be first.  Timelines will be set up.

Motion to request funding for master plan/ordinances/mapping updates made by Mr. Rosellini, seconded by Mr. Lewis

Roll call: unanimous

Mr. Lewis noted that at the last EDC meeting, they agreed to support the Planning Board in assisting getting monies to see this go forward.

Mr. Lipari updated those that were late that the lifestyle mall applicant would do a corridor study and they would participate in costs.  The scope of review will be decided at the subcommittee level. 


PMISC07-35 Camp Louemma – 48 Stiles Ln. – B: 149.4, L: 4 – office (850 s.f.) for non-profit children’s camp – 3 employees – hours of operation 10am-5pm Mon-Fri (occasional Sat or Sun) – signage to be in compliance with approved theme (Aspen)

Approved by Mr. Rosellini, seconded by Mr. Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous


PMN07-01 WILLIAM IELLIMO – 30 Changebridge Rd. – B: 82. Lot: 8.01 – Two minor subdivision w/variances – Eligible:  Leigh Witty, Tony Speciale, John Rosellini, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis, John Visco, Ladis Karkowsky

Motion to adopt made by Mr. Rosellini, Seconded by Mr. Visco

Roll call:  Messrs. Witty, Speciale, Rosellini, Lewis, Visco and Ms.  Nielson - Yes


                                Montville Township Planning Board Application Number: PMN06-14

                                Shell Station – 7 Eleven Lot Line Adjustment

Mr. Omland updated the board on the issues with the cost of installation of lighting from this subdivision approval.  He noted this was not a new development but was a lot line adjustment.  They agreed to streetscape but new construction of the 3 lights came to around $24,000.  Applicant has requested Planning board to reconsider the 3 lights, noting he posted $10,000 for the lighting, but this amount of short in calculating cost.  Applicant is asking Planning Board to reconsider the requirement of providing 3 lights and to address what would be fair and equitable.  We can ask them to do one – three lights or suggest we leave the $10,000 for future streetscape improvements and use these monies.  He deferred legal issue to Mr. Carroll as to the law.  Bonding for streetscape has to be returned after ten years if not used. When asked what would work?  Mr. Omland indicated he wouldn’t do one light, but felt two might work.  

Mr. Rosellini didn’t agree.  Mrs. Kull:   3 lights on that corner seem like a lot.  Maybe two lights might be the best way to go. 

Mr. Daughtry:  the funds were for certain types of lights and aren’t JCP&L lights cheaper?  Mr. Omland:  streetscape lights on private property are paid for and maintained by applicant.  Costs would be much cheaper for JCP&L lighting.  Holding monies isn’t the way to go since we have to do this on private monies.  Mr. Rosellini:  comfortable with 2 lighting fixture.  Both would be on Changebridge Road.  Planning Board agreed on reducing lighting fixtures to two in a motion made by Mr. Rosellini, seconded by Ms. Kull.  Mrs. White will note same on resolution and mapping.  Roll call:  Unanimous.


Minutes of 10-11-07 - Roll call vote: Marie Kull, Leigh Witty, John Visco, Larry Hines, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Deborah Nielson, Ladis Karkowsky – Mr. Hines, seconded by Mr. Visco


Omland Engineering – Trust for: $120, $200, $360, $300, $420, $480, $600, $1,380 (K&K)

Michael Patrick Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $120, $60, $210, $120, $60, $60, $60, $60, $30, $30, $30, $30, $60, $30, $150

Approved in a motion by Ms. Kull, seconded by Mr. Hines; Roll call:  Unanimous





Legal question posed by Mr. Rosellini:  how long a period of time must it be is after you used a professional that may come before the Board?  Once you are finished with a project, do you step down, noting his business relationship with Mr. Boswell?

Mr. Carroll:  a mere fact of using an engineer or lawyer is insufficient as a matter of fact.  If you feel there is a problem, then consider stepping down.  The answer to the question where you haven’t used professional in a time not a larger issue, but if you are close to relationship, you should consider this.  By the end of the day, board member must consider if there is a conflict and if there is a possibility, step.



Note:  Mr. Carroll sworn in the board professionals                                                                       

PMSP/FC07-11 Suppa, Frank Jr. – 137 Taylortown Rd./63 Boonton Ave. – B: 33, L: 1, 2 & 4 – Notice Acceptable                ACT BY:  11/20/07

Geoff Evans, Esq. summarized application indicating the applicant, Frank Suppa Jr., has submitted an application for preliminary/final major subdivision approval.  The property consists of three tax lots at the corner of Taylortown Road and Boonton Avenue.  The applicant is proposing to consolidate Lots 1 and 2 into one new lot, transfer approximately 10,000 sq ft from Lot 4 to this new lot, and subdivide the remaining land on Lot 4 into two new lots for the purpose of constructing single-family dwellings.  Lots 1 and 2 are located in the R-20A Residential District; Lot 4 is located in the R-43 Residential District.  Lots 1 and 2 are essentially one residential property, irregular in shape, comprised of 0.59 acres (25,797 sf). The property has approximately 205 feet of frontage on Boonton Avenue and 106 feet on Taylortown Road. 

Existing development consists of a 2-story frame dwelling and an accessory garage structure to the rear of the dwelling accessing Taylortown Road.  Lot 4 is close to rectangular in shape and is comprised of 2.81 acres (122,510 sf).  The property has approximately 373 feet of footage on Taylortown Road and a depth of approximately 340 feet.

Existing development consists of a 1-story frame dwelling and an accessory garage and shed, all located in the northern corner of the lot.  The lot slopes downward from the southern corner to the northern corner, with steep slopes—some in excess of 25%--along the northwestern lot line adjacent to Lot 2, as well as on the eastern portion of the site along Taylortown Road and along the rear lot line.  The majority of the lot south of garage and shed is wooded.  Lots 1 and 2 are located in the R-20A Residential District; Lot 4 is located in the R-43 Residential District.

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures on Lot 4 and construct two single-family dwellings.  A new lot line is proposed bisecting Lot 4 into proposed Lots 4.01 and 4.02.  The applicant is proposing to consolidate Lots 1 & 2 and transfer 10,000 square feet from the northwestern side of Lot 4 to form proposed Lot 1.01. 

The applicant requested exceptions from the Township’s design standards for Steep Slope Disturbance for lots 4.01 and 4.02 for the disturbance of steep slopes on site.  Lot 4.01:  the applicant is proposing to disturb 64.6% of slopes of 20-25% on the lot, whereas the maximum disturbance allowed is 33.33%. 

On Lot 4.02, the applicant is proposing to disturb 100% of slopes 15-20% and 20-25%, whereas the maximum disturbances allowed are 50% and 33.33%, respectively.  100% of slopes greater than 25% are proposed to be disturbed as a result of driveway grading and septic system disposal field grading.  The ordinance permits the disturbance of steep slopes greater than 25% if it is “essential for the construction of a…driveway crossing…or other like necessary improvement.” 

As to Driveway Slope, the applicant requires a waiver for the proposed slope of the driveway on Lot 4.02.  Section 16.28.020M(2)(h) requires the first 20 feet of a driveway to have a slope not exceeding 2%, .  The applicant is proposing a slope of 5% in the first 20 feet which occurs in the same area as the steep slope disturbance of slopes greater than 25% noted above. 

Applicant also requests a waiver from RSIS for the installation of curbing along the Taylortown Road and Boonton Avenue frontages, and for the installation of sidewalks along the Taylortown Road and Boonton Avenue frontages.  

Mr. Suppa, Jr.  sworn indicated he lived in township for many years giving history of his background and that he purchased lot adjacent to existing home.  He bought this home in order to add 50’ more to son’s property for driveway

Joseph Mianecki, PE sworn

Marked into exhibit:  A1 preliminary plat dated 6-25-07 revised Aug. 1st 2007 – colorized preliminary plat marked as exhibit.

He indicated he has an LOI indicating there is no wetlands/buffers and no regulated features on site.  The lots will be served by municipal water.  There is existing water but no sewers, proposing two septics for lots 4.01 and 4.02.  Existing house has septic.  Did test pits on both lots and are all sand and gravel.

Testimony offered on disturbance of disturbance for slope indicating total area amounts to about 294 sq. ft. of land; middle lot 4.01 two waivers for slope disturbances for 15-20% for 84% over.  The entire area is 407 sq. ft.  He indicated these disturbances are needed for driveways/septic

Mrs. White noted a new fence ordinance adopted which means that the existing chain link fence requires a variance is needed for chain link fence.  This was not originally applied for.  Mr. Mianecki indicated this is a pre-existing non-conforming chain link fence along lot 1 and 2.  Mr. Suppa:  indicated affirmatively, and asked for this to remain in view of the young children and location of property to street.  Board had no objection to this request.   

Mr. Mianecki indicated he needs the exception for driveway since he really can’t provide the grade by code and wants to keep driveway at 5%..  He agreed he would require waiver from RSIS standards for concrete sidewalks since none exist and also for curbing.  There are none that exist on Boonton Avenue or Tayortown Road. 

Discussion ensued on the significant maple tree on lot 4.01.  It is located next to a street tree.  In this immediate area, there is a septic system proposed in this area.  Was hoping that if these lots were developed, the house and septic may be able to be retained.  Mr. Lewis indicated he would like to maintain the tree.  Why not shift septic field back to accommodate this.  To put in a 2 ½ caliber shade tree is not equal to this.  Mr. Mianecki indicated he can shift the septic and will attempt to address this concern to save tree.     

Mr. Lipari:  report from DPW notes concerns on runoff and icing.  Mr. Mianecki:  Did consider what Water and Sewer indicated, spoke to Mr. Russo, and can put a grate over both drains, pipe into drywells and recommended rain gardens, and this would limit runoff coming down driveways. Applicant agreed to work out this issue with Omland Engineering and Water and Sewer Dept.

Mr. Omland: asked if applicant would agree to compliance with all items in his memo.  Applicant concurred to comply with all comments of August 14th.  Mr. Burgis indicated he feels that his zoning issues were addressed by direct testimony and have been addressed.  Applicant also agreed to comply with all agency reports received.

Opened to public, hearing none closed unanimously.

Motion to grant subdivision, variance, exceptions and waivers requested as testified to approve in a motion by John Rosellini, seconded by Larry Hines, compliance with testimony as offered, and normal applicable provisions of subdivision approval.

Roll call:  Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Larry Hines, Art Daughtry, Lee Witty (alt2), Tony Speciale (alt1) and Russ Lipari

Note:  Hank Huelsebusch PE present on next case for Planning Board

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 from 10-11-07 agenda                   ACT BY: 2-08-08

Legal Clarification:  Dr. Keating is a personal physician to several Board members and is there a question of conflict for participation in a case like this?  Mr. Carroll indicated this question arose in a prior legal case explaining the case to board members feeling this type of a relationship is closer than the case in court. 

Note:  Mr. Hines and Mr. Daughtry stepped down off this hearing. 

Mr. Rosellini asked before we start this case, he would like to discuss the Historic Preservation request relative to granting a 30’ easement from the canal and how the applicant intended to address this request?  Mr. Brancato, applicant’s attorney, indicated that the 30’ set back if required would take up the entire parking lot and would make development of this lot unreasonable should they be required to supply this to HPRC.  Discussion ensued on location of the tow path and existing canal bed, and that the applicant’s present plan provides 10’ parking off the edge of existing canal area. 

Mr. Brancata indicated that he was asked to respond to this tonight with Planning Board and that he spoke to representatives from the State HPRC summarizing that there are no State guidelines requiring a 30’ easement.  He indicated he also spoke to Morris County Planning Department planner who indicated he knew of no regulations requiring this type of easement from canal. 

Mr. Lewis indicated he doesn’t necessarily want to throw out HPRC comments and would want some assurances on this issue.

Mr. Carroll indicated he is not aware of any state standards noting if it is not a statute and/or adopted rules, regulations guidelines by an administrative agency, then it is not a regulatory requirement that we are subject to.  He indicated that these requirements may be a result of guidelines developed by HPRC but they must be adopted by an administrative agency to make them binding.  He indicated that perhaps the easiest way to respond to this to indicate that if such a thing does exist, any approval document, if approved by this board, indicate that development of this site is subject to state HPRC approval. 

He also indicated that if there are rules and/or regulations adopted by the HPRC, there must be a statement that indicates the HPRC adopted them and that this must be in an ordinance.  If the HPRC has a set of standards, then we need to have these adopted by ordinance, they must be adopted by code and the governing body, otherwise they are strictly advisory.  Mr. Brancata summarized that he did speak to these other agencies and there are no standards that exist.  Planning Board is satisfied with Mr. Carroll’s determination.  Practical matter is that the applicant walks away with approval from a Planning Board, leaves it dependent on HRPC review and then we have a lawsuit.  In absence of some rule to which we can resort, the Board will apply normal standards of site plan.  We can ask for larger setbacks, but without enforceable standards, the Planning Board cannot compel this applicant, as summarized by Mr. Carroll.

Mark Brancato, Esq. application is for medical offices for Dr. Keating summarizing this proposal is an application for subdivision and site plan approval.  The properties in question are located on the southerly side of Route 202, between Taylortown and River Roads, and are bounded by the former Morris Canal to the south.  The subdivision involves removing 6,223 sq ft from Lot 28 (Woodmont Properties) to be added to Lot 33 in order to accommodate the construction of a medical office building.  Lot 28 is located in the I-2 Industrial District.  Lot 33 is located in the B-1 Business District and a medical office building is a permitted use in both districts. 

Dr. Keating:  sworn

Testified he resides in Montville and practicing 20 years here, and his office is at 350 Main Road.  Discussion ensued on what is considered clinic vs what is considered a professional office.  He indicated a clinic is more of a large facility that would be dedicated to mass vs personal and primary care medicine.  Don’t know if there is a legal definition.  He will only practice primary care. He will have three floors of office space.  One floor has offices in the finished basement.  Basement will be lunchroom and some minor services will be provided down there, while the balance of area will be undeveloped.

The upper floors would be examination rooms but he indicated he has no idea for type of space layout at this time.  Board discussed the plan reflecting labeling as offices on second floor.  He will conduct the same type of practice he is in now in this new building.  He is in 3500 sq. ft. and will be doing same services in the 8400 sq. ft. proposal and at this time he has no intention of renting out other offices. 

Will there be other physicians in the office building?  Dr. Keating indicated there will be other doctors, but no full time intentions at this time noting it is customary to have a specialist to be part of the medical practice and there would be no surgery or procedures involved on this site.

Mr. Lewis:  if you have more practitioners, how would this work since he would like to get a handle on how many doctors could support 8500 sq. ft. of space?  Dr. Keating indicated a couple of physicians practice at his office now and is part time.  There are about five there now.  Looking towards the future, would these extra medical offices be more intense as to staff and visitors.  Dr. Keating:  indicated customary they don’t need their own nurse since the front staff handles, and allows for less people in a building than you normally would have. 

What happens in office on second floor?  Much of space is see patients.  The 3365 sq. ft. area is strictly for office use.  Mr. Lewis:  there is an elevator to the second floor and this does provides for more medical offices.  If there were no elevator, then there would be no patient care on second floor.  Dr. Keating indicated that if they wanted to take one of the second floors upstairs it would be available.   Not saying that, but if they want to take one of the offices upstairs.  Ms. Kull:  if you are building a medical building, why is there a problem with other doctors if they have an office with examining room?  Mr. Visco:  worrying about parking.  Mr. Lipari:  and also want to respond to what happens down the road? 

You haven’t added a loading or unloading zone and the ordinance requires 1 off-street loading space for “every building or use of 10,000 sq. ft. or less .  Dr. Keating indicated it is not needed since his deliveries are by UPS.

Opened to public:  Hearing none, closed.

Tom Ashphain, Architect – sworn

Credentials given and board certified as an expert

Mr. Ashphain review the Design Review comments, indicating that the applicant took these comments into consideration. The main entry is from side.  Front of building which faces Rt. 202 did not have any entrance, and the DRC wanted an entrance element which is same element on the side to create a symmetrical façade to the roadway.  The only other suggestion is the use of Metal grouping over entrance elevation.   The applicant agreed to provide same.  Materials and colors approved.  

Bottom of the plan shows freestanding signs.  Board members questioned if other signs in area similar to this?  Mr. Ashphain indicated there are no freestanding signs allowed, and a variance is requested.  Sign is 14 sq. ft. and is not internally lit, but will be indirect lighting

Mr. Lewis asked if applicant had ever had any dealings with historic preservation efforts.  Mr. Asphain:  no.   Mr. Lewis indicates that whether the HPRC comments are binding or not, one of the variances requested is related directly to locating parking adjacent to the canal and closer to zone then code allows.  As part of your justification as to why this is acceptable, would like to hear what can be done on this site absent making the parking conform to parking and how would you support the fact that you are adjacent to a Canal property, whether it be a feature on building or recognition of canal in area.  He indicated he hopes someone should testify as to make this awareness to the folks getting out of the car adjacent to the Morris Canal, and he would want testimony on this.  The code requires that parking and traffic aisles be located at least 20 feet from residential zones in the B-1 district, and 25 feet from such zones in the I-2 district.  The applicant proposes parking that is a minimum of 10.6 feet from the R-27A zone to the south of the property. 

Mr. Brancata:  if there is a standard sign and/or plaque, would like to have this placed on property.  Mr. Lewis:  if they know we can’t hold setback requirement, what is next best thing as to what we can do.  We want to be sensitive to this.  Mr. Lewis indicated that he would be happy to attend the HPRC if Mr. Rosellini couldn’t attend the next meeting when this will be discussed since he would like to participate in this meeting.  At this time, the Planning Board did not waive HPRC review of site. 

(Note:  Mr. Rosellini left)


Continued discussion on placement of freestanding sign indicating it has no visual impact on surrounding property. 

Opened to public…

Dave Cox, 17 Kokora Avenue.   Illumination discussed.  Overhead lamp and concern would be to have some lower and have hours of restriction. 

Mark Walker – sworn

Credentials accepted

He testified he is familiar with lighting and residents in the rear.  The lighting is downward lighting.  There is no glowing light and these are directed down towards the ground.  The office building adjacent, per Mr. Cox, has a light that was put on rear onto residential properties. 

Mr. Walker indicated the foot-candles end at the pavement and then canal area is owned by township which is 100’ and then residential properties.  Mr. Cox indicated he is concerned with a ‘glow’.

Mr. Walker indicated the light shines back onto building and is 65’ to 70’ from property line.  There are no spotlights on building?  Applicant indicated they will need sensor lighting for emergency lighting and a motion detector on front for security purposes.  Mr. Cox advised we will look at the spotlighting in back of Woodmont Properties.  Dr. Keating indicated the offices won’t be open until 8AM and lighting will be off by 8:30PM. 

Mr. Walker reviewed the area and adjacent zoning indicating applicant is proposing subdivision to purchase a small parcel of land that is 28’ consisting of over 6,000 sq. ft.  Lot 33 would receive this land.  The larger plan is an exhibit that is marked as A2, colorized subdivision plan.  Rt. 202 to the north and area to the west is Taylortown Road and four properties to the east is River Road.  He summarized the variances due to the zone location noting that for both existing and proposed Lot 28:  parking next to residential zone; freestanding sign variances. 

Property adjacent is owned by Township and is not intended to be developed.    Mr. Lipari:  there is no way to maneuver the parking to take it more away from rear?  Mr. Walker indicated there is an easement and a drainage easement along the front of the property. 

The applicant is not proposing a sidewalk which is required on master plan.  Mr. Walker indicated there are no sidewalks in this area. Discussion ensued on possible sidewalk contribution for future improvements.

 Dumpster location discussed.  It is located in rear.  Mr. Burgis voiced concerns as to noise and accessibility.  Dr. Keating indicated it would be pick up during off peak hours and there is a 6’ enclosure.  In response to Mr. Burgis question on additional landscaping being required, applicant indicated that they would comply. 

As to loading zone variance:  Mr. Lewis indicated although testimony indicated no need based on his business operations, what if there is a need for loading dock in the future?  Mr. Walker:  only way to get a loading space in here is to take one of the spaces and make it oversized. Applicant asked to show alternate scheme.  Other comments are addressed or are in testimony.  Bulk variances:  C2 criteria public benefits to improve. 

Mr. Ashbahian is testifying also as a planner and stated credentials giving benefits for sign.  Planning Board had no objection to sign. Mr. Huelsebusch:  asked about the location of the sign?  Mr. Walker:  he placed it in this location to make it visible.  It is located 15’ of ROW and about 30’ from traveled way.  If he were to move it closer to the roadway, it would be consistent with signs in the adjacent area.  Board indicated that they would allow sign to be located in best location as determined Board engineer. 

Planning Board indicated they will carry this application at this time, and asked applicant to get outstanding reports.  Carried application with notice preserved  

Street lighting should be addressed, and applicant should respond to article C9 of Huelsebusch report and that applicant should clarify on parking standard is correct or not correct.  Mr. Burgis:  ITE for this type of medical use suggests 38 parking spaces would be required feeling either one would suffice as to parking needs.  The issue of handicap parking arose also?  Is 3 spaces enough?  This use does not treat that requirement any differently.  Motion to carry with notice preserved to December 12, 2007 made by Tony Speciale, seconded by Gary  Lewis.  Roll call:  Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Russ Lipari, Antony Speciale and Leigh Witty.  Mr. Brancato extended time for the board to take action to this meeting. 

Update re:  GI Auto

Ms. Nielson indicated that the Township Committee entertained the rezoning request and at this hearing there were a number of people objecting.  Mr. Burgis and Mr. Lewis attend.  The end result is that the Township Committee will introduce the ordinance with the elimination of the big box retail.  All other components will remain the same. 

Motion to adjourn unanimously accepted in a motion by Mr. Lewis, seconded by Ms. Kull.

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White


Absent w/explanation


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack