PB Minutes 11-19-07 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

7:30 PM REGULAR MEETING

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2007

ROLL CALL

Mr. Rosellini                - present                                Mr. Karkowsky - present  

Ms. Kull - present                                                Mr. Daughtry - present

Ms. Nielson - present                                   Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari - present                                   Mr. Lewis - present

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

Mr. Witty (alt#2) – absent

Also present:   Stan Omland, PE

                                Mike Carroll, Esq.

                               

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

None

               

COMMITTEE REPORTS

None

Secretary noted the following carried hearings to the dates noted:

PMS/C 07-18 - Beyer Bros. Corp.- 57 Route 46 East, Block 184, Lot 2

Site Plan & Variances                - Notice Acceptable – Request to carry to 12/12/07

                                                                                                                                TENTATIVE

PMSP/F07-12 K&S at Montville – 49 Old Ln. – B: 39.07, L: 2 – 6 SF lots         -Request to carry to 12/12/07                           ACT BY: 1-10-08

                               

Motion to carry with notice made by Mr. Speciale, seconded by Ms. Nielson.  Roll call: unanimous

                               

PLANNING BUSINESS

1)  Ordinance Amendment Chapter 16.40 providing for a new B6 Business District – referral from Township Committee

Mrs. White summarized this is a referral from the Township Committee, which is scheduled for adoption at their meeting on November 27th.  The Township Committee

eliminated big box retail the original ordinance developed by Planning Board.  All other areas of ordinance remain the same, except for the elimination of this use.  Ms. Kull indicated she was pleased to hear that the Township Committee eliminated the big box use from the ordinance voicing concerns on traffic and residential concerns. 

Ms. Nielson indicated that the Township Committee had a large number of residents that came out and strongly voiced opposition to big box.  She indicated that the chart from Mr. Burgis was displayed and the traffic counts for this proposed use were substantial.  Township Committee heard the residents’ concerns and removed this portion from ordinance for consideration. 

Mr. Daughtry indicated there were four members of Township Committee present that night, and there was some logic offered to them that night supporting their unanimous decision to eliminate this use mentioned concerns about the Rt. 46 access, traffic and residential concerns as to the impact to their residential neighborhood should this use go forward.  The four voted unanimously to eliminate this use based on the many concerns voiced.

Mr. Lewis:  Joe Burgis made a credible job in presenting Planning Board’s position and made a good argument for this ordinance as the Planning Board recommended it. 

Ms. Nielson agreed both he and Mr. Lewis represented planning board well.

Mr. Rosellini voiced some concerns he held on this action, noting several years ago the applicant came to governing body asking for housing of around 400 units.  Township Committee indicated it was too many units, and wasn’t in favor of 3 stories over parking.  Subsequently, he indicated this proposed use and market had dried up, and this opportunity of rezoning has been missed. 

We are now looking at an ordinance from a planner that had four different options as to how these uses would fit on the site, and is having trouble digesting that the residents wanted the big box out.  While at this level, the Planning Board voiced concerns about a Board of Adjustment application for a big box use noting that the Planning Board wanted to control jurisdiction, feeling this ordinance is beyond what was discussed in prior years.  You are now looking at a hotel that is 75’ which is a huge impact, along with a retail component associated with it, and this traffic would be an impact to the residents.  He thinks the Planning Board worked out a credible ordinance.  The fact that big box is stricken from the ordinance is a concern and he questioned about doing what is right for the Township. 

If there is a contract out there with a big box, shouldn’t we have the most control possible by having it in the ordinance vs. not having it in the ordinance?  He noted he understood the concerns voiced, but to truly protect residents, we should look to height of hotel and the mixed use/housing component and make sure we address this correctly.  If we lose this opportunity (reminding board members about the opposition to eh Home Depot site which ultimately turned out well), you may lose control of a site.  It isn’t a bad use if you control this site, and we have more on this Home Depot site due to our town’s review involvement.  His concern is that Mr. Burgis gave a great report, and he gave facts, and we may lose control of a use, and this is something that the governing body has to consider.  What about the height of the hotel?  A hotel and retail will be 10 times denser.  Legally, should we send this back to Township Committee with our comments?

Mr. Lewis:  at this point in time, when the Township Committee introduces an ordinance prior to adoption, isn’t the Planning Board limited to statements relative to conformance with master plan.  Mr. Carroll:  the statute is that the governing body refers back to Planning Board.  Tonight you must determine if it is consistent with master plan.  This is the only effective thing you can do.  You can say all things as a concern.  The answer tonight:  is this ordinance as composed consistent with the Master Plan.  If you decide this is a case, then have Mr. Burgis draft a one page memo drafting that it is consistent with master plan.

Opened to public.

Kevin Boswell asked to read a statement into the record and brought a plan of development of a possible Lowe’s.  Chairman polled the board indicating he had no problem with comments, but not sure of allowing another presentation in view of ordinance referred.  Mr. Daughtry:  not interested in seeing presentation.  Ms. Nielson clarified that the Planning Board’s charge tonight is to determine if it is consistent with the master plan.  Mr. Lipari, Mr. Rosellini, Ms. Kull and Mr. Speciale felt no need to see presentation voicing no objection to hearing statement.   Mr. Visco and Mr. Lewis concurred. 

Mr. Boswell indicated:  Our application started in 2005 at which time they requested Township for consideration for aged restricted housing.  At that time, the Township Committee held up this request until such time there was compliance with court order that dated back to the salvage yard operation.  When this was resolved, the Township Committee in 2006 referred it to Planning Board for 400 active adult uses.  Applicant was asked to consider acquiring adjacent lot, lot 38, which they did do.  The Planning Board looked at other sites in addressing this aged restricted housing.  The Board asked for renderings which was done, and to preserve areas along Passaic River.  All of these things allowed for development of a good project meeting township goals.

Discussion on access to Rt. 46 evolved and the applicant pursued this.  After it was determined that this aged restricted housing use, in late 2006, was not feasible, the only alternative was to develop it as retail.  They were met with an acceptable offer by Lowe’s.  In Feb. 2007, it was disclosed that they were in conversations with Lowe’s.  In June 2007, this proposal came before the Planning Board which then discussed the different options on this site reviewing all of the various uses.  The only concern of important to this developer was to allow a Lowe’s.  In this regard, the developer indicated they have a signed lease, and there is an application being prepared for submission to the Township, which board being the issue at this time. 

The developer submitted various concept plans to the planner, and a number of comments were added based on these comments.  A fiscal impact plan was submitted in Oct. 07, showing retail use reflecting $230,000 fiscal impact vs. $50,000 current taxes being received from current site.  There were vocal output from the residents and based on this the Township Committee struck this big box out of this ordinance.  The other uses were not viable for this developer to pursue.  They spent 18 months trying to acquire an aged restricted developer, couldn’t find any, and came in with something they thought the town would embrace.  There were questions about stories/height/buffering, and all these things were done, as well as to access Rt. 46 which also was done, at a possible cost of 2M.  The aged restricted use dissolved.  The other uses are not as viable.  The developer has looked at hotel use, and contacted hotels.  The applicant looked at retail establishments like high end grocery stores.  Lowe’s never went away, but they were still looking at compatible uses for this site finding no other use to economically replace the existing use.

The application for development of a Lowe’s is being prepared and at this time not sure which board this application would be geared at.  If you don’t change current land use ordinance, the developer will be going to the Zoning Board.  Application before that board will indicate that the existing use of a junkyard is undesirable, noting that this township has attempted for 3 decades to limit this operation, that the existing site will be cleared up and the proposed use is consistent with township’s desire to develop and increased tax revenue.  The plan will propose construction of a primary access on Rt. 46, they have purchased the home on lot 28 to provide buffer between Maple Avenue and proposed parking areas and will develop a cul de sac to stop traffic thru Maple Avenue area as well as provide upgrades on Bloomfield and will also create a preserve along Passaic River to allow for recreational uses.  This is what will be told to the Board of Adjustment.  He believes this is a good case, and if we can prove our case, then we will get a shopping center.  If we can’t prove this case, the junkyard will stay there.   Developer believes that if it is another 20 years to develop if this doesn’t go thru and the township will lose all those years of additional revenue.  He indicated he would like to see the ordinance that was originally drafted adopted with the big box since it represents a significant amount of work on behalf of applicant and township to find a use that is desirable and economically viable.  He requested the Planning Board to consider this since an application will go forward, and offer this respectfully to have this site plan before this board to try and get the best project for the residents and the township.

Mr. Karkowsky:  all this board can do is to say it is consistent with the Master Plan, and at this time, this may be out of our hand.  The Governing Body has a final vote.  He asked Mr. Carroll if PB could ask the Township Committee to reconsider this.  Mr. Carroll indicated that this question is limited at this board level, and at this junction the only thing this Planning Board can do is to either pas that is it or isn’t consistent with the master plan

Motion to close to public by Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Lipari

Roll call:  Unanimous

Mr. Daughtry indicated this process started with something that the neighbors embraced (aged restricted housing) and because that market dried up, they need other zoning to allow big box.  We want the best use for this property for this citizen.  Mr. Rosellini:  everyone embraced application for aged restricted housing but disagreed on numbers.  Concern today is what board will this type of application for big box go to? Mr. Daughtry voiced full confidence in having the Board of Adjustment provide the review process having no concerns with this. 

Mr. Lewis indicated he endorses ordinance as it exists, but feels it is inconsistent with the Master Plan.  This would require the governing body to adopt by a super opinion.  Although he doesn’t feel it comports with master plan that exists currently, he still supports ordinance.  The master plan would have to be amended to address the aged restricted housing.  For discussion purposes, not determining it complies with master plan. 

Mrs. Nielson:  reminded Board that we intended to develop a master plan amendment to respond to this ordinance, and that this should be a priority in the New Year.  Mrs. White to coordinate this with Mr. Burgis. 

Mr. Rosellini:  if this planning board wants to put a caveat in it, it is important that this message is carried to the governing body.   

Mr. Karkowsky:  can make a stipulation that it is not consistent with aged restricted housing.

Mr. Lipari:  would have liked to have seen this project at this level.  No point of going to a super vote.  The only thing is if it was there, and things didn’t work out, the current uses were still there, the residents may have a different view. 

The master plan element addressing this ordinance will be developed to accommodate this ordinance.  Mr. Rosellini:  if we say it is inconsistent with master plan, what is the issue?  Mr. Carroll:  you have a referral ordinance which has a limited time for review at the Planning Board, and if you don’t review and report, you miss chance to submit comments.  It really doesn’t affect ordinance on master plan inconsistency, just requires a super opinion/decision on vote.  Mr. Daughtry indicated that we had always intended to go forward with the master plan. Mr. Carroll indicated that this comes into play at BoA level since proofs are different at that level, and you want  the master plan adopted to give guidance to that board should this application proceed to that level.  He recommended adoption with Mr. Burgis giving statement as to inconsistency.  Motion made by Russ Lipari recommending adoption by Township Committee with Mr. Burgis providing necessary language as to inconsistency with Master,  seconded by Mr. Daughtry.  Roll call:  Unanimous

Other Business:

WINEBOW NOISE TESTING:  Mr. Rosellini voiced concerns about noise testing procedures conducted by Winebow since the noise testing was to be done when operation was in full swing.  Mr. Daughtry indicated the best testing device there are the neighbors.  Mr. Karkowsky voiced concerns on the number of trucks parked on this site:  there were at least 20 trucks parked on this site, were stacked on this site on the Hook Mountain site.  Mr. Speciale indicated during testimony they indicated that during the holiday there would be additional trucks.  The resolution reviewed by Mrs. White requires the noise study to be evaluated by Mr. Omland.  The technical data was not given to the Planning Board.  Mr. Omland will review the letter and report accordingly. 

Mr. Rosellini noted that the Don Pepe’s sign is down, but now Bonefish has a huge banner across top.  Mrs. White will address this.

Also voiced concerns on the change of the Home Depot lighting, still feeling it was more of an orange subdued lighting and now it is bright white.  Mrs. White indicated she is trying to find the specifications to see the colors, but none of the plans reflect a colored light. 

Also the streetscape lighting along Rt. 46 in front of Bonefish is wrong.  It should be perpendicular to street not parallel.  Mrs. White will discuss with Township Engineer and address.

UpdatePGDP07-14 Montville Lifestyle Center – Changebridge/Kramer – B: 138, L: 11 and 10.3 – Rezoning from I to Retail use – Study Proposal from J. Burgis

Green Meadows Road to Old Bloomfield study area:  Mrs. White indicated that she received a verbal proposal of $5,000.  Concerns voiced by Mr. Lewis that this appears to be a low price for what the Planning Board wants the planner to study and asked that Mr. Burgis submit something in writing to make sure the scope of his review is defined.  This issue rescheduled to agenda of December 12th.

Discussion of 2008 Meeting Dates

Dates reviewed.  Mrs. White was asked to review the first meeting in November since this is the week that school is closed and we tend to have quorum issues.  Mrs. White will further review and put on schedule for final review December 12th.

Review of Proposed Budget – Board professionals – Board moved into closed session at the end of the evening, and upon return moved that the planner’s rate remain the same; increases given to engineer and lawyer due to longevity and no increase over past five years.  Rate increased to $135.

Update on Highlands Changes – update by Stan Omland, PE

Master Plan is a blueprint showing vision; problem is that the Highlands Act overrides Master Plan.  Highlands’s council very routinely has public hearings.  Today they are adopting the regional master plan.  Had a publication that has been out for a number of months.  Mr. Omland indicated he met with the executive director and have yet be given background mapping to see how map was implemented.  They have taken indicator, preservation zone, planning zone, and in planning zone will create 3 new planning districts:  existing, conservation and a protection zone.  First map that came out indicated wherever there was green this was undevelopable.  They stripped indicators down to 22 which were more appropriate, and believe mapping of line will be a better line which will be more reflective.  The line there is LANS generated that analyses activity.  It is a computer generated line.  The adoption of plan will go forward.  You can’t see mapping since website gives you a PDF, but GIS info to allow any lot/impact may be available tomorrow.  Plan adopted tonight extends to Mid January the public comment period, and then there will be 30-60 days to process and adopt this master plan.  From there will be a cross acceptance process where they will meet with you and engage you to opt in their plan, which is supposed to get you funding, support legally, but you must embrace their ordinances into the township’s ordinances.  The only thing will be adoption.  What has been told is that every town has petitioned and asked to make changes to the prior mapping but Highlands’s staff indicated they are not accepting letters and require proof, like sewer and water.  No one knows what will happen.  They hired planner out of Florida who did the Pinelands, and who is good and will give them better grounding.  These new document are much better than last ones.  The staff at Highlands welcomes Montville’s inquiries and will be more than happy to come and talk about the plan, its benefits and penalties in Montville.  They want to engage you, and give whole story not partial story.

Mr. Daughtry:  had the luxury of being directly involved in this process.  We submitted a map and took their original data, and on mapping documents reflected updated new residences.  They accepted this.  Mr. Omland:  Cannot tell if the model changed in his favor.  The model considered was on ground.  If information could be validated, computers would have been changed and maps updated accordingly.  Mr. Omland will review and follow process on this.

C1 Streams:

Mr. Karkowsky:  down at the league, there is a C1 stream where there is a requirement of 300’ buffer and asked Mr. Omland to elaborate on this for board.  Mr. Omland indicated on Oct. 2nd of last year, new stream encroachment came into effect regulating all of NJ floodplains.  Now they wish to regulate every stream and ditch in the state.  C1 waters are regulated more for trout, scenic; there will be 300’ buffer as well as any waters within 1 mile which will have a 150’ buffer.  This is called a riparian buffer.  Crooked Brook, Hatfield Brook has minimum of 50’ which you cannot do much in.  You can maintain it.  You can’t pave it.  These are called Riparian buffers and have much more regulations.  Rockaway River is not of a water quality nor is Passaic River, they are non-trout Rivers.  The actual date the DEP uses goes back to the date of publication of proposal, October 2, 06 beyond which no clearing could occur adjacent to a stream.

WAIVERS

PMISC07-36 AAA Communications – 15 Riverside Dr. – B: 182, L: 6.1 – office (7,144 s.f.)/warehouse (19,386 s.f.)/distribution for the service of radio & telephone communications – 18 employees – hours of operation 8am-6pm Mon-Fri – 3 trucks stored outside and 3 vans stored inside – no signage requested – 2-3 UPS, Fed Ex, DHL type deliveries per day – dumpster to be enclosed (Frassetto Company)

Motion to approve subject to compliance with agency findings and use letter made by John Rosellini, Seconded by Art Daughtry.  Roll call:  Unanimous

PMISC07-37 Arcadian Healthcare – 55 Rt. 46 Suite 402 – office (1,759 s.f.) for medical billing & collection – 10 employees – hours of operation 8am-6pm Mon-Fri – signage to be in compliance with approved theme (First Industrial)

Motion to approve subject to compliance with agency findings and use letter made by John Visco, Seconded by John Rosellini Roll call:  Unanimous

Mr. Rosellini voiced concerns about the random and various dumpsters located along the back near the second entrance and along side of Sunset Motel.  There are dumpsters throughout this parking lot.  We had approved some time ago a dumpster replacement plan for First Industrial.  This site should be reviewed and addressed.  The plan should be pulled and have Mr. Buie meet on site to address.  

Concerns also noted about a new dumpster that is located adjacent to the residential and back fence on Montville Inn.  It is there without approval.  Mrs. White indicated this applicant is coming back for amended site plan, and this issue should be address at that time. 

RESOLUTIONS

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 – Approved 10-11-07       Roll call vote: Gary Lewis, John Visco, Ladis Karkowsky, Larry Hines, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull

Motion to approve made by John Visco

Seconded by Marie Kull

Roll call:  Unanimous

PMSP/FC07-11 Suppa, Frank Jr. – 137 Taylortown Rd./63 Boonton Ave. – B: 33, L: 1, 2 & 4 – Roll call:  Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines and alternates Anthony Speciale and Leigh Witty

Motion to approve made by John Rosellini

Seconded by John Visco

Roll call:  Unanimous

Mr. Lewis noted on Paragraph 8, misspelled word:  should be land development ordinance in first sentence.  Mrs. White will correct.  Resolution adopted with corrected sentence. 

CORRESPONDENCE

None

MINUTES

Minutes of 10-25-07 – Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John  Visco, Gary Lewis, John  Rosellini, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale, Leigh Witty

Subcommittee minutes of 10-30-07 – Deb Nielson, John Visco, Russ Lipari and John Rosellini

Motion to approve made by John Rosellini

Seconded by Russ Lipari

Roll call:  Unanimous

INVOICES

Burgis Associates – O/E for: $490, $30; Trust for: $440, $450, $1,020,

$90, $810, $725, $425, $500, $420, $555, $240, $1,110 (Suppa’s)

                Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $30, $630, $30, $540, $1,290 (Suppa’s)

                Omland Engineering – Trust for: $150, $300

                Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $135

Motion to approve made by Marie Kull Seconded by Tony Speciale Roll call:  Unanimous

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

None

Mr. Daughtry indicated there will be a development application coming in on property behind his lands along Rt. 202.  He indicated there is according to the township engineer, an LOI issued on this site.  Apparently proposal would be aged restricted housing. It may have been reviewed earlier, and will review same. 

OLD BUSINESS

None

               

NEW BUSINESS                (Note:  the following applications requested to be carried to the dates as indicated with notice preserved and/or new notice provided.) 

PMS/C 07-18 - Beyer Bros. Corp.- 57 Route 46 East, Block 184, Lot 2

Site Plan & Variances                - Notice Acceptable – Request to carry to 12/12/07

                                                                                                                                TENTATIVE

PMSP/F07-12 K&S at Montville – 49 Old Ln. – B: 39.07, L: 2 – 6 SF lots         -Request to carry to 12/12/07                           ACT BY: 1-10-08

Mr. Lewis voiced concerns about the HPRC and wanted to make sure that our liaison attended the Monday HPRC meeting on Dr. Keatings application.  Mr. Rosellini indicated he would attend.  He questioned, though, the size of the proposed questioning if the building isn’t something more than just Dr. Keating’s offices, feeling it is too much building on site.  Mr. Lewis indicated he hoped the developer would be sensitive to canal.

A motion was also made to send a letter congratulating the HPRC and the Township on receipt of the recognition received per newspaper article. 

Board moved to closed session to discuss personnel.  Upon return, Board moved to increase rates of engineer and attorney to $135 and maintained the current rate for planner.  Decision based on no increase for over five years. 

Board adjourned unanimously in a motion made by Russ Lipari, seconded by John Visco.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda  M. White

With explanation

 

 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack