MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road,
Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2007
Rosellini - present Mr. Karkowsky
Kull - present Mr. Daughtry - present
Nielson – entrance noted Mr. Visco - present
Lipari – present Acting Chair Mr.
Lewis – entrance noted
Speciale (alt#1) - present Mr. Hines - present
Witty (alt#2) - present
present: Stan Omland, PE
Michael Carroll, Esq.
Hank Huelsebusch, PE (for Keating Application)
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.
Lifestyle Center – Changebridge/Kramer – B: 138, L: 11 and 10.3 – Rezoning from I to
Mr. Rosellini abstained on
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.
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
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.
use/Industrial Zones – Proposed Ordinance Draft discussion (Note: Mr. Rosellini abstained from these discussions)
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
to recommend to the Township Committee made by: Tony Speciale
by John Visco Roll call: unanimous
Update: Towaco Parking Lot Evaluation
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.
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
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)
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
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.
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.
to request funding for master plan/ordinances/mapping updates made by Mr.
Rosellini, seconded by Mr. Lewis
Lewis noted that at the last EDC meeting, they agreed to support the Planning
Board in assisting getting monies to see this go forward.
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)
by Mr. Rosellini, seconded by Mr. Hines
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
to adopt made by Mr. Rosellini, Seconded by Mr. Visco
call: Messrs. Witty, Speciale,
Rosellini, Lewis, Visco and Ms. Nielson
Montville Township Planning Board Application
Station – 7 Eleven Lot Line Adjustment
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.
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.
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:
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
Engineering – Trust for: $120, $200, $360, $300, $420, $480, $600, $1,380
Patrick Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $120, $60, $210, $120, $60, $60, $60, $60,
$30, $30, $30, $30, $60, $30, $150
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?
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
Suppa, Frank Jr. – 137 Taylortown Rd./63 Boonton Ave. – B: 33, L: 1, 2 & 4 – Notice
Acceptable ACT BY:
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Mianecki, PE sworn
into exhibit: A1 preliminary plat dated 6-25-07 revised Aug. 1st 2007
– colorized preliminary plat marked as exhibit.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
to public, hearing none closed unanimously.
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
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
PSPP/FC/PMN07-08 Keating, Wm – 137 Rt. 202 – B: 51, L:
33 & 28 –
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
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
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.
Lewis indicated he doesn’t necessarily want to throw out HPRC comments and
would want some assurances on this issue.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
to public: Hearing none, closed.
Ashphain, Architect – sworn
given and board certified as an expert
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.
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
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
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)
discussion on placement of freestanding sign indicating it has no visual impact
on surrounding property.
Cox, 17 Kokora Avenue. Illumination
discussed. Overhead lamp and concern
would be to have some lower and have hours of restriction.
Walker – sworn
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Board indicated they will carry this application at this time, and asked
applicant to get outstanding reports.
Carried application with notice preserved
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.
re: GI Auto
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
to adjourn unanimously accepted in a motion by Mr. Lewis, seconded by Ms. Kull.