PB Minutes 9-27-07 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

7:00 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

SEPTEMBER 27, 2007

ROLL CALL

Mr. Rosellini - present – entrance noted          Mr. Karkowsky - present   

Ms. Kull - present                                               Mr. Daughtry - absent

Ms. Nielson – entrance noted                           Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari - absent                                              Mr. Lewis - present

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

Mr. Witty (alt#2) – present

Also present:

Michael Carroll, Esq.

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP

Frank Russo, PE, Omland Engineering

                               

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Carried hearings:

Secretary announced that the following hearings requested to be rescheduled to the dates indicated herein:

PGDP07-14 Montville Lifestyle Center – Changebridge/Kramer – B: 138, L: 11 and 10.3 – Rezoning from I to Retail use – Application carried with notice to October 25, 2007

FMSP/F06-15 S. Development Major Subdivision – 80 Hook Mountain    Road, Block 164, Lot 8.01, R27A zone – 3 lot subdivision

Application carried with notice preserved to 10-11-07 agenda – time to act extended to 10/12/07

               

COMMITTEE REPORTS

None

                               

PLANNING BUSINESS

Gary Lewis:  Linda White indicated she requested the board professionals to develop cost proposals for the 2008 calendar year to allow her to develop Planning Board budget, indicating he would want to make sure that we had adequate time to stress to the Township Administrator the need to make sure monies we request for master plan/zoning ordinances studies is allocated for next year’s budget so we can get this work done.  The Board Professionals indicated they received the request and would have their proposals in by mid October.

(Note: the Planning Board chairman moved the agenda items around before starting rezoning hearings and applications scheduled.)

WAIVERS

None

RESOLUTIONS

None

CORRESPONDENCE

None

                               

MINUTES

Minutes of 8-9-07 Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty

Subcommittee minutes:  9-6-07 Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deborah Nielson, John Rosellini

Subcommittee minutes of 9-18-07 – Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, John Rosellini, John Visco, Deborah Nielson, Russ Lipari

Motion to adopt Larry Hines, Seconded by: Tony Speciale

Roll call vote: Unanimous

INVOICES

Omland Engineering – O/E for: $180, $120; Trust for: $80, $690, $570, $30, $30, $180, $60, $510, $690, $120, $120, $120, $120, $600, $390, $120, $360, $60, $60, $90, $60, $120, $600, $120, $600, $600, $840

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Litigation for: $31.25; O/E for: $450; Trust for: $180, $120, $60, $120, $30, $60, $30, $30, $90, $60, $30, $30, $510, $1,080, $330, $30, $600

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $330

Bricker & Associates – Trust for: $900, $660, $480

Burgis Associates – Trust for: $450, $180, $605, $930, $60, $277.50, $750, $90, $310, $510, $287.50, $330, $360, $450, $2,875, $870

Motion to approve made by: Larry Hines

Seconded by: Gary Lewis

Roll call vote: Unanimous

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

None

Update ORDINANCE NO. 2007-40 -Amendment of Chapter 16 to permit adult community housing in a new OB1A – Final Recommendation Report Review

Mrs. White indicated that this is the ordinance that the Planning Board recommended to the Township Committee for adoption.  The ordinance was sent back to the Planning Board for final review before scheduled adoption in October.  Mrs. White indicated that since this zone is not consistent with our master plan, we would need to establish special reasons and facts as to why we would recommend this ordinance for final adoption.  Accordingly Mrs. White read the planner’s report to indicate the special reasons as to why the Township Committee should adopt.    

Burgis Report of 9-27-07indicated:

The accompanying draft ordinance proposes the creation of a new OB-1A zone district, in which adult community housing would be a permitted use.  Because this proposal is not consistent with the master plan, there are certain steps the governing body must take if the planning board recommends the approval of this ordinance.

The Municipal Land Use Law in Section 40:55D-62a states that “the governing body may adopt a zoning ordinance or amendment or revision thereto which in whole or in part is inconsistent with or not designed to effectuate the land use plan element and the housing plan element, but only by affirmative vote of a majority of the full authorized membership of the governing body with the reasons of the governing body for so acting set forth in a resolution and recorded in its minutes when adopting such a zoning ordinance.”

It is recommended that the planning board provide the governing body with the following reasons for approval:

The township’s population has experienced a significant increase in its aging population;

The available census data indicates that, between the years 1990 and 2000, the percentage of the township’s population that is minimally age fifty-five increased by fifty-two percent (52%), from 3,102 residents to 4,721 residents;

The State of New Jersey has stated a legislative intent indicating that the provision of senior citizen housing is to be encouraged in light of the above;

One of the explicit purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law is to encourage senior citizen housing;

The planning board has made a determination that adult community housing would be appropriate in a new OB-1A Zone at Bloomfield Avenue and Hook Mountain Road, along Route 80.

Gary Lewis moved that we recommend adoption for the reasons stipulated in the Burgis report, Second by: Larry Hines

Roll call vote: Gary Lewis, John Visco, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty, Ladis Karkowsky

Fence Ordinance Amendments       

The below draft was discussed by board members.  Arrows indicate the areas of change.   Planning Board comments follow draft ordinance:                               

16.44.200          Fences, Walls and Sight Triangles.

A.                     For purposes of the chapter, the term “fence” is defined to mean “an artificially constructed barrier of any material or combination of materials erected to enclose, screen, or separate areas.” For purposes of this chapter, the term “fence” shall include the term “wall.”

B.                     No fence shall be constructed or installed so as to constitute a hazard to traffic or safety.

C.                     No fence shall encroach upon or be constructed or installed within a local public road or right-of-way, unless approved as part of the site plan or subdivision application for development.

D.                     No fence shall be erected of barbed wire, topped with metal spikes or electrified nor shall any fence be constructed of any material or in any manner that may be dangerous to persons or to animals.

E.         Entrance & and/or driveway gates shall not open towards the street.  The total footprint of the entranceway pillars and flanking walls shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet, and the average height of the flanking walls shall not exceed five (5’) feet.

F.         On a corner lot, all walls and fences shall comply with Chapter 16.44.150.

G.         Deer and seasonal plant protection fencing shall be constructed of vinyl or vinyl coated materials, shall be dark green, black or brown in color and shall have openings no smaller than four (4) square inches.  Deer fence posts shall be dark green, black, or brown in color. 

H.         Recreation/sport courts may be surrounded by a fence with a maximum height of fifteen (15’) feet and set back from any property line the distance required for accessory buildings in the applicable zone.

I.          A private residential or commercial swimming pool area must be enclosed by a suitable fence with a self-latching gate at least four (4’) feet, but no more than 6’ in height. 

J.         The finished side of all fences shall face adjacent properties and streets. The finished side for all permitted fences shall be situated on a lot in such a manner that the finished or non-structural side shall face abutting properties.

K.         Limitations on chain link.  Chain link fences shall be permitted only in conjunction with manufacturing or warehousing operations, business uses, communication towers, public recreational facilities, governmental uses, private swimming pools and as excepted by this section.  Landscaping may be required in conjunction with such fencing

L.         Stormwater flow.  Fences and walls shall be erected to avoid damming or diverting the natural flow of water or shall be integrated into a grading plan that provides for the adequate movement of storm water.

M.        Fencing shall be permitted as an accessory use in all zoning districts in accordance with the following regulations.

N.         Residential Districts

1.         On any lot in any district, no wall except retaining walls or fence shall be erected or altered so that said wall or fence shall be over four (4) feet in height in front yard areas and six (6) feet in height anywhere else on the lot except

A dog run may have fencing a maximum of seven (7) feet in height provided such use is located in rear yard areas only and is set back from any lot line at least fifteen (15) feet.  Chain link fence may be used.

A deer protection fence consisting of a fence material that shall be an open type wire grid so as to minimize the fence’s visual impact on surrounding properties is permitted up to a maximum height of eight (8) feet, shall be permitted in side in rear yard areas and is permitted on lots of three  (3) acres or more. Deer and seasonal plant protection fencing shall be constructed of vinyl or vinyl coated materials, shall be dark green, black or brown in color and shall have openings no smaller than four (4) square inches. Deer fence posts shall be dark green, black, or brown in color. 

c.         Any fence used to contain livestock shall be located at least ten (10) feet from a property line or street right-of-way line.

d.         A tennis court area, located in rear yard areas only, may be surrounded by a fence a maximum of fifteen (15) feet in height; said fence shall be set back from any lot line the distance(s) required for accessory buildings in the applicable zoning district.  Chain link fence may be used.

e.         No fence shall exceed five (5) feet in height in a rear yard of a reverse frontage lot.

f.          On lots of three acres or more, entrance gates may be a maximum of twelve (12) feet in height provided the length of the gate does not exceed twenty-five (25) linear feet.

Added Ord.#2006-47 – never codified

g.         Gates and pillars shall be permitted in the R Residential districts only in compliance with the lot width, height and            setback standards of this subsection.  Gates and pillars shall be located only on the main entry drive to any residential property and in compliance with the following lot width and height requirements:

MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS

                                                                                                            Maximum Height

At Street Line                                                                            Including Light Fixtures

        (feet)

81 to 104.9                                                                                                        4 feet

105 to 119.9                                                                                                      6 feet

120 & over                                                                                                         8 feet

                       

Gates and pillars shall be set back as to sight distance consistent with the requirements of Section 16.28.020 for driveways and parking areas in residential zones.  On lots with minimum widths at the street line of 105 feet and over, they shall be located at least ten (10) feet from side and rear property lines.  On other lots where allowed, they shall be located at least five (5) feet from side and rear property lines.  In all R Districts they shall be located at least            five (5) feet from the front street right-of-way line.  Gates and/or pillars shall be erected and located in a manner that will not block, obstruct or impede access to the property by Township emergency vehicles.  A minimum separation of twelve (12) feet shall be maintained between the driveway faces of pillars, including gateposts, hinges and decorative caps.

O.         Non-Residential Districts

1.         In the AH, B and OB Districts, no wall or fence shall exceed a height of six (6) feet above ground level; provided, however, that in the R and AH Districts, a fence used to enclose tennis courts


may be erected to a height of not more than fifteen (15) feet above ground level, and further provided that said fence is located at least ten (10) feet from a property line. Upon discontinuance of tennis court use, any such fence shall either be reduced to a height of six (6) feet or removed.

(2) In the I Districts, no wall or fence shall exceed a height of eight (8) feet above ground level and shall be permitted in side and rear yards only.

P.         Walls

      1.  The maximum height of any retaining wall, regardless of Zoning District or                        

           yard location shall be six feet.                                  

2.         For purposes of applying height limits, multiple, staggered or tiered walls shall be considered single walls unless there is a minimum horizontal distance of ten (10) feet between the top of any section or tier and the base of any one (1) section or tier, the horizontal distance between the top of any section or tier shall be equal to or greater than the height of the taller section or tier.  These provisions shall apply to multiple staggered or tiered walls, which span property lines.

3.  Walls shall be constructed with the following materials only:

a. Stone, brick, concrete or cinder block faced with stone, brick or similar      masonry material.

b.         Concrete shadow and open block, concrete and cinder block coated with concrete or stucco material and painted concrete block.

Railroad tie or similar timber material for retaining walls only.

4.  Prior to final approval of any retaining walls exceeding 4’ in height, a certification shall be provided by a New Jersey licensed professional engineer attesting that the retaining wall was constructed in conformance with the structural design.

5. Retaining walls shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 16.28.020H.8, however a fence or safety barrier must be constructed at the top of the retaining wall, within the jurisdictional limits of Section 16.28.020H.8.

Q.         Fence construction.  Fences shall be constructed of the following materials only:

1. Nonrusting wire or chain link vinyl or vinyl coated materials, shall be dark green, black or brown in color and which fence posts shall also be dark green, black, or brown in color, and which may include metal, plastic or wood slats;

2.         Picket, split rock, stockade, basket weave, louver and similar wood fence.  No section of a fence located between any two (2) upright supports shall be constructed of a single, solid wood panel unless said section of fence is forty percent (40%) open;

3.         All fences shall be properly supported by securely anchored posts;

4.         The use of barbed wire or wire on which barbs or points are strung or fastened is prohibited, except in I districts and then only when said wire is attached to a fence above a height of six (6) feet.

R.         Any fence facing on a street or property line shall have the front surface exposed to said street or property line.

S.         All walls and fences shall be maintained in safe, sound and upright condition.

T.         Permits for walls and fences.

1.         Prior to the erection or alteration of any wall or fence, a permit for same shall be obtained from the Zoning Office in accordance with all applicable procedures and requirements of the Department.

Prior to the issuance of a permit for any wall or fence in connection with any use, other than one or two-family dwelling, the Zoning Officer shall refer the application to the Planning Board for its approval, unless approval was already granted in connection with a subdivision or site plan application.  In reviewing the application, the Planning Board, at its discretion, may refer same to the Design Review Committee in accordance with Section 16.28.040C.

Mrs. White indicated that all of the comments reflected were gathered from input of Township Engineer, Planner, and appears to be in final form.  She did wish to have clarification on the requirement of allowing vinyl clad fencing since there were concerns voiced by some board members on allowing this.  Gary Lewis: have no problems with a vinyl clad fence and feel if they use a fence with a small mesh, it is practically invisible.  Agrees on prohibiting non-clad fencing and has no problem with that.

Note: Ms. Nielson enters

Ms. Nielson indicated that she would like to see vinyl clad eliminated from the ordinance feeling there are other choices available for fencing.

Chair polled board members on eliminating vinyl clad fencing as being permitted:

John Visco, Larry Hines, Deborah Nielson and Ladis Karkowsky thought it should be taken out of the code; Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale and Leigh Witty had no objection to keeping it in code.

Ms. Deborah Nielson indicated she would prefer to see more upscale design in all areas vs allowing vinyl clad chain link.

John Visco agreed and would like to see it eliminated from code, as did Mr. Hines.  Mrs. Speciale agreed for residential use but would like the board to reconsider industrial and commercial in view of dumpster areas, outside storage uses. 

Mr. Witty indicated that a small chain link fence is invisible.  Mr. Lewis indicated that wooden fences deteriorated. 

Motion made by John Visco, Seconded by: Larry Hines to request the Township Committee to adopt changes recommended in fence ordinance.  Mrs. White asked Mr. Burgis to provide new working for this section of the code so it could be forwarded to Township Committee for introduction.  Roll call vote: John Visco, Larry Hines, Deborah Nielson, ladis Karkowsky – Yes

Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty - No

Concept review Streetscape – Update from Township Committee meeting

Linda White indicated that Mr. Barile prepared a report and asked that the Planning Board review the two specifications that he picked for residential lighting fixtures.  The commercial/industrial lighting is the Towaco Theme, must be on the owner’s property, maintenance and expenses paid by owner of lands. 

Discussion ensued.  Mrs. White asked to have Design Review Committee review the fixtures, black only, and offer recommendation.

Note: John Rosellini entered

Update on Towaco Center Ordinances – on for October 11th

Mrs. White indicated that we have received several planning documents from Joe Burgis: one being the concept design for a municipal parking lot off Waughaw Road, the other was the conceptual design for Towaco Center.  Mrs. Nielson asked Mr. Burgis what buffer he used for parking lot design.  Mr. Burgis indicated he used existing data and that he designed it based on a 50’ buffer.  Discussion ensued on whether or not this buffer would be approved by DEP and/or is it the 150’ buffer that may render using this lot for parking moot.  Ms. White asked if this should be verified before going forward with starting hearings on Towaco master plan/concept layout?  Mr. Burgis indicated that this needs to be done ASAP since his designs, density and parking needs are based on use of this parking lot area.  He suggested we get an engineer to make the determination as to at minimum the buffer requirement.  Mr. Russo indicated they do not have a wetlands expert at Omland Engineering.  This study would have to be funded.  Mr. Russo felt the cost might be as high as $5,000.  He indicated you would need an environmental expert to render this information to Planning Board.  Board members discussed the need to determine this parking lot and ultimate design.  Mr. Burgis indicated that to accommodate the Towaco Center design, we need the 86 parking spaces.  Mr. Lewis: if this lot were not available, what would happen?    Mr. Burgis: you need to change the intensity of design.  He indicated that this is a redevelopment plan and he may be able to look at designing a zoning regulation that would stipulate that if you don’t have the required number of spaces, you intensity would automatically decrease. 

Mr. Russo indicated environmental firms go by area delineated for pricing, and this is approximately a 15 acre site.  Mrs. White was asked to get some estimates.  Gary Lewis:  not sure we go forward with the Towaco Center study until we get this data.  Mr. Burgis indicated that this is true and until we get that environmental answer, his analysis of the entire property has to be readdressed.

Mrs. White was asked to look at getting estimates ASAP, and that the Towaco Center will not go forward until this is established.  Get estimates back to Planning Board by Oct. 11th meeting on a cost for a qualified expert to indicate what the buffer would be in size.

GI Auto Study/Ordinance Reviews                                                  

Block 167 Lots 28 – 32, Block 179 Lot 1

Deborah Nielson:  concerns with parking standards for garden center discussed.  The number in the code is what the garden center requires, and felt this number low based on what is experience during spring at some of the larger Home Depot/Lowes center?   Mr. Burgis indicated he counted the garden center as part of the retail use.  John Rosellini:  what is current retail numbers?  What is the number we approved at Home Depot?  The Planning Board also approved deferred parking on this site, and there doesn’t appear to be a problem with this retail use.  Deborah Nielson:  would want Mr. Burgis to readdress these numbers to make sure they are adequate.  Ms. Nielson:  voiced concerns on the height of the HVAC at 15’ on top of building feeling this is too high.  Mr. Burgis indicated that it could be 8’ and would rethink this.  Mr. Burgis indicated that he was thinking of elevators corridors on buildings, thus the 15’.  Feels we can lower it to around 8’.  John Rosellini:  what about restricting access off of Rt. 46, and only emergency off side street.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  if applicant comes in with Lowes, they are asking for vacation of Old Bloomfield.  Their only other frontage is Maple, and there can be no access due to wetlands, and ordinance provides buffer.  John Rosellini:  only access is Old Bloomfield, how do you prevent this from becoming a main thoroughfare. 

Mr. Burgis indicated that he has put in that Rt. 46 is a requirement of access.  If applicant didn’t meet any one of the conditions, Planning Board would still have this application since it is not a conditional use, but is a zoning provision and requirement of code.  It would require proofs of a variance, not a design standard.  John Rosellini:  Does this mean any access off of Old Bloomfield would be a variance even if fire services.   Mr. Burgis: yes.

Ladis Karkowsky:  obviously Rt. 46 is based on permission of DOT.  John Rosellini:  feels that a big box retail applicant would be able to do this work relative to Rt. 46. 

Age restricted housing discussed.  Mr. Burgis indicated the same concerns with buffers.  Density: Talking about 9 units to an acre.  His report stated 2.5 stories.  However this standard was called to his attention, and he revisited his notes from past discussion that indicated that the height could be 3 stories over parking garage.  He indicated he could increase the setback and increase maximum number of units per building to get more open space.  John Rosellini:  original concept was 4 stories.  Deborah Nielson:  3 over parking was ok, and noted that if 16 units per building max as outlined in the preliminary Burgis Report, the maximum of 350 would require 21 buildings, feeling this number may not work on 20 acres.  Mr. Lewis indicated he wouldn’t care if it were 4 floors either way.  If there were ground floor units, have no problem.  Building will look the same.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  parking under units results in less impervious coverage.

Self storage facilities discussed.  One of benefits of self-storage of any of the uses generate very little of parking demand other than when first opened.  Once there, never need more than 10-15 spaces. 

Modest regulatory controls for use, but recognize it can be with other activities.  Could be a small acreage of up to 3 uses.  John Rosellini:  what about permitting cemeteries/vaults.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  this use actually generates more parking

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  hotel and retail mixed use discussed.  He looked at higher buildings for this design, went to a 6 story hotel with retail development.  This would take the entire tract of 35 acres.  The bigger concern is the buffers to ensure physical separation of the residences, with greater setback off of Rt. 46.  Had same concern of open space and landscaping amenity and mandate that the property along river would be permanent open space.  Raise the same questions about pedestrian movement as with big box retail.   All issues regarding the facades, architectural design would play out on this type of use. 

John Rosellini:  asked for clarification in draft under C - area and bulk regulations, tract development on page. 9, lot area and tract area and feels acreage should be consistent with designing site.  One area talks about 20 acres, but envisioned entire property for use.  60’ height indicated for hotel and other height of structures would be conventional 35’.  Stories discussed to relate to this area, feeling Tara might be a 5 or 6 story hotel. 

He developed this code with a conference center in hotel plus a retail component and could design in such a way that it is crated with a roadway and regulations would encourage between the two types of uses. John Rosellini:  hotel on one side?  Retail on the other.  Capped offices at 100,000 with retail as 40,000.  

Gary Lewis:  it says no single use shall exceed 40,000.  Could have several on site as long as you met requirements.  Gary Lewis:  office is a total cap.  Retail is flexible.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  can have a conference center down there.

Gary Lewis:  one of the questions:  if the township advocated a hotel/conference center, and you have hotel traffic and parking, with a daytime conference event, and parking available on site, concerned that site can’t handle surcharge of conference business.  What does parking requirement do to accommodate this provision with no on street parking?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  must look at standards. Developed ordinance for 250 spaces for all uses, but would make sure to label parking for conference center so that it is clearly indicated so that parking is addressed.

Ladis Karkowsky:  opened to public as to questions on what was presented this evening.

No public.

John Rosellini:  feel this should be further defined and discussed at the subcommittee, but is a good report, and has come up with answers to questions we asked.  Would hate to see this lost on bureaucracy.  Board members discussed possibility of seeing some examples of building out.  Deborah Nielson:  would want to further review these documents, and feels we can have this done within the next couple of weeks, and would like to conclude before the end of the year.

John Rosellini:  four options here.  First: This is not spot zoning.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  no, one of the things you would do is to amend the master plan to reflect whatever choices you end up making.  A single critical issue would be addressed since we would amendment master plan to provide final ordinance.  Instead of a single use for a property, we created all of these as options and the zoning for the site, which gives a developer the opportunity.  Whoever can afford to do Rt. 46, and in reality is that this development will be market driven, but if and when a developer comes in, the uses are defined well.  Don’t think there should be one use picked, and this zone should have several options for development.  John Visco:  subcommittee should be comfortable with their review. 

Planning Board asked that this item be scheduled for discussion on October 11th agenda.

Ms. Nielson indicated she would keep the Township Committee abreast of this issue at the Township Committee level.

Silvia Wallace, 2 Maple Ave. – she indicated the residents were disappointed with Planning Board and that is why there are few people here this evening.  They feel that they come but don’t have a say.  Residents feel that we will do what we want.  She feels ¾ of the town live in this area and these people are starting to sell their homes.  Big luxury things coming in aren’t’ what these residents want.   They would like to see something that is going to make sense.  They thought that was aged restricted housing.  They feel the decision is made.

John Swauger, 48 Bloomfield Ave., he indicated he has been talking to neighbors and everyone is just fed up and tired of hearing about it feeling this has been going on to no conclusion.  These residents don’t want traffic.  They feel that have a have a beautiful neighborhood and don’t want something that is going to infringe on a neighborhood.  Best solution is that senior housing is a plus, and state is recommending it is being built and senior population is growing.  The only downfall is police and first aid squads.

Listen to the people:  they want senior housing.  They feel the township took too long in deciding this and the chance for this use was lost.

Deborah Nielson:  indicated that she personally made sure that the Planning Board reconsidered senior housing in their current deliberations.  She explained the history of the applicant, indicating the delays in review and approval of the age restricted housing proposal were due to lack of compliance with prior court order requirements for the junkyard.  The governing body indicated that the owner should clean up the site and conduct soils testing and when this was done, the rezone request went immediately forward. 

Mr. Swauger:  feels that no one has stopped the trucks coming over the bridge before GI, which is posted. John Rosellini:  explained history.  Did everything in their power and took litigation.  Gary Lewis:  no opportunity was lost on senior housing at this level.  It was the developers who by the time he went forward, make up his mind that the marketability of this type of use had closed.  Doubt it was inaction of the town’s part.  John Rosellini:  felt it was more a density issue.  Ultimately the developer made decision to not go forward with the housing component.

Chris Burke:  indicating the township has been going around with this stuff for years.  Voiced concerns about statements made by Mr. Rosellini.  Feels the Planning Board needs to look at what is good for the people down there?  What about traffic down here and what will happen?  This is a 12 ton bridge and the trucks going over it weigh more.    

Gary Lewis:  a development that excludes traffic on Old Bloomfield improves this residential area. John Rosellini:  most people are newer and are all volunteers working hard on this.  Mr. Burgis is new, and anything is better. 

Discussion ensued on traffic, Home Depot development, concerns on noise, traffic, lighting, but ultimately hings work.  The town is looking to try and clean up this site.  Gary Lewis:  the Planning Board wants to hear what is good or bad from the people.  There is another shot, and this is what the Planning Board is listening.  Mrs. White was asked to send out additional postcards for Oct. 11the asking for residents to attend this continued hearing.  John Visco:  we are reviewing 4 possibilities or all four uses on this site, and we need to hear from neighbors: what is going to affect them more or less.  Most agree the majority of problem is the traffic.  John Rosellini:  Rt. 46 access is a demand financially.

Deborah Nielson:  stressed we are here to listen:  we heard concerns on light and noise.  These are things to look for.  Maybe the buffer to the existing residential homes has to be larger.  Maybe developing housing on one side of the site, and retail on the other would work. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  reminded residents that one of the issues before was that the applicant indicated that housing development could not have access on Rt. 46.  We are concerned with this area, and we are looking for input.

John Shauger:  asked if a developer coming in would look at redesign of roadways in the area, and accessibility to the on ramp for Rt. 80.   Deborah Nielson:  indicated this issue was looked into by the Township Committee in the past, and when a developer comes in, he has to respond to traffic impact statements, and this may be looked at again.  John Rosellini:  indicated that any developer coming it would have to do a complete traffic study.  Will other access be used, ie. Like Burlington coat.  Have to look at all o f these as an impact, but once they get here, we then have abilities to address these issues.

John Street was paved, Maple is pretty bad, and are any of the other streets going to be paved.  Mr. Shauger told to seek input from Township Engineer on this issue.

Also indicated that at the corner of Coletti and the right on Hook Mountain, the cemetery fence is down.  Mrs. White will address.  

This matter was referred to the subcommittee, and will be rescheduled to Oct 11th agenda.  Postcards will be sent out again.  Motion made by: John Rosellini, Second by: John Visco

Roll call vote:  unanimous

Jos. Burgis Memo

Introduction

 This memo represents a follow-up to a July 2007 memo regarding the prospective rezoning of the GI Auto site on westbound Route 46 at Bloomfield Avenue.  The July report presented a substantial amount of background data on the subject site and surrounding area, including data on the site’s physical features, master plan and zoning considerations, and related information.  It also assessed the propriety of various alternative uses of the property, and the prospective impacts of those uses on a variety of community indices.  The analysis suggested the propriety of a retail use including big box retail, as well as a mixed-use retail/hotel use at this location.  

Pursuant to the board’s discussion of that memo and their subsequent directive following that discussion, I have prepared regulations to indicate the manner in which the township may regulate different uses on the GI Auto site.  According to the minutes of that meeting, the board indicated that ordinance provisions be prepared for a variety of alternative use scenarios, including big box retail, conventional retail use, self storage and hotel use.  At a subsequent meeting, the board added age-restricted housing as another use to be considered.  Our assessment, as exemplified by the regulatory approaches set forth below, indicates that suitable regulatory controls can be imposed on the multitude of uses that are under consideration to properly address many of the planning concerns raised at the July meeting, and the board should review these options to confirm this for themselves.  It is suggested that, if there is general concurrence on this point, the regulatory approach alone should not necessarily be perceived as the persuasive element in determining the appropriate use of this property.  Rather, this memo should be read in conjunction with the impact assessment set forth in the prior report to ensure a well rounded review of this entire matter.

The following is offered for the board’s consideration.

 1.Big Box Retail

 A significant concern regarding big box retail is the ability to impose suitable regulations that ensure an attractive design, an aesthetically appealing façade, a pedestrian friendly environment, and sufficient landscape amenity that minimizes the impression of a sea of paved area for parking.  The following is offered for discussion.  It is noted that many of these types of controls could also be imposed on conventional retail development.

A. General Design Standards

 1. Building Form and Mass.

 a. All buildings should relate harmoniously to the site’s natural features and other buildings, as well as other structures in the vicinity that have a visual relationship and orientation to the proposed buildings.  Such features should be incorporated into the design of building form and mass, and assist in the determination of building orientation in order to preserve visual access to natural and man-made community focal points.

b. Large horizontal buildings should be broken into segments having vertical orientation.  A visual or physical break should be provided minimally every 30 linear feet.  This is designed to break up the façade and give the impression of a multi-tenanted building to reduce the scale and mass of the structure.

c. Buildings with expansive blank walls are prohibited.  Appropriate façade treatments should be imposed to ensure that such buildings are integrated with the rest of the development.

d. New buildings are encouraged to incorporate such building elements as entrances, corner features, graphic panels, display windows, etc., as a means to provide a visually attractive environment.

e. Cornices, awnings, canopies, flag poles, signage, and other ornamental features should be encouraged as a means to enhance the visual environment.  Such features may be permitted to project over pedestrian sidewalks, with a minimum vertical clearance of 8.5 feet, to within two feet of a curb.

 2. Façade Treatment.

a. A “human scale” of development should be achieved at grade and along the front building façade through the use of such elements as windows, doors, columns, awnings and gabled canopies.

b. Design emphasis should be placed on primary building entrances.  They should be vertical in character,      particularly when there is the need to provide contrast with a long linear building footprint, and such details as piers, columns, and framing should be utilized to reinforce verticality.

3. Material and Texture.

a. A variety of materials may be appropriate.  Masonry, which works well at the base of a building, can vary in size, color and texture and enables the provision of a decorative pattern or banding at the base of the building.  Above 12 feet, it can be substituted with other suitable materials.

b. The use of fabric or metal canopies is to be encouraged, especially over storefronts, at entrances, or over display windows.

c. Integration of large-scale graphics into the façade is encouraged, where appropriate.

4. Lighting.

a. The use of creative lighting schemes to highlight building facades and related areas of a site shall be encouraged.  The use of traditional style lanterns and similar fixtures shall also be encouraged.  Exterior neon lights and lighting generating glare and unnecessary night-glow impacts shall be prohibited.

b. Whenever possible, light poles should be integrated into landscaped islands.

5. Streetscape Design.

a. The use of street furniture (benches, tables, trash receptacles, etc.) shall be encouraged throughout the development, provided the materials used are consistent with the overall concept of the building design.

b. Sidewalks should have a width of at least 10 feet along main pedestrian paths where active pedestrian corridors are located and active pedestrian movements are encouraged, and located along building frontages so as to tie the various building elements together.  Wider sidewalks may be designed for special places such as plazas or courts.

c. Decorative imprint roadway surfacing shall be provided at all primary pedestrian building entrances and crosswalks between buildings.

6. Landscape and Open Space.

a. A hierarchy of landscape features should be established for the site.  The main entrance driveway should include street trees on each side of the principle access roadway, and such trees should be different than the trees used in parking areas.  Spacing between trees shall be a maximum of 40 feet unless another vertical element, such as a decorative light fixture, is used between the trees, in which case a maximum 60 feet shall be permitted.  Trees along primary driveways should be in a formal arrangement, while informal planting may be provided along other driveways.

b. Street trees and other plant material should be provided at the ends of parking bays. Landscaped islands should be at least six feet in width.

                c. Trees should be a 2.5 to 3 inch caliper.

d. Parking rows longer than 20 parking spaces should have a six foot wide landscape island to break the pavement.

e. A substantive planting plan for the site’s street frontage shall also be provided and consist of a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, plants and shrubs.  The design should be prepared to provide partial screening of the parking lot.  Shade trees shall be minimally 2.5 to 3 inch caliper.  Evergreen trees shall vary between 7 to 8 feet and 8 to 10 feet in height.  Shrubs shall be least 24 inches in height.

f. Any portion of the tract that is within 800 feet of the Passaic River shall be preserved as permanent open space. Said land area may, at the option of the developer, be (1) conveyed to the Township of Montville, if acceptable to the Township, (2) conveyed to an organization established expressly for the ownership and maintenance of such open space, or (3) the open space shall be established by filing of maps showing the dedication of the land for such open space purpose.  Regardless of the method used, such land shall be set aside in perpetuity for the use of the residents of the development and such other persons as may be permitted.

In addition to the above, I have prepared preliminary area, bulk and signage regulations for the board’s consideration.  

B. Area and Bulk Regulations.

1) Lot Development.

a. Minimum tract area shall be 20 acres.

b. Minimum street frontage: 350 feet.

c. Minimum lot depth: 400 feet

d. Building Setbacks to External Roads and Lot Lines.  Buildings shall be set back from the Route 46 right-of-way a minimum of 150 feet.  A minimum setback of 250 feet shall be maintained from any other public street and 150 feet from all other external property lines.

 e. Minimum Setback to Internal Roads: 15 feet to curb line of any internal roads or driveways exclusive of loading areas.

 f. Setbacks between buildings.  A minimum of 50 feet and a maximum of 150 foot setback shall be maintained between sidewalks serving principal buildings on-site.  Accessory uses such as kiosks, clock towers, etc., shall not be subject to these regulations.

 g. Building Height.  A maximum building height of 2 stories and 32 feet shall be permitted.

 h. Ancillary rooftop appurtenances.  Ancillary rooftop appurtenances including decorative features may exceed the height limitations set forth herein, provided that such appurtenances shall not exceed 15 feet in height and 20 percent of the area of the roof of such building.  All rooftop appurtenances shall b e screened by a parapet or similar screening element.

 i. Multiple retail buildings shall be permitted on site, provided that no more than one building shall be permitted to have a maximum building footprint of 170,000 square feet of gross floor area.  No more than one retail store can be more than 100,000 square feet and no other individual retail store shall exceed 50,000 square feet. 

 j. Maximum Building Coverage: __ percent

 k. Maximum Impervious Coverage: __ percent

 l. Multiple Buildings on a Lot: Permitted.

C. Signage.

 1. Monument Signs.  

a. Uses greater than ______ square feet in area may have two monument signs located at the principal entrance points to the site.

b. The height of a monument sign shall be limited to ___ feet in height inclusive of the base of the sign.  The monument sign shall be setback at least ___ feet from any right-of-way.  The sign shall not exceed __ square feet in area.

 2) Wall-Mounted Signs.  Each commercial use shall be entitled to a wall-mounted sign, but in not event shall the total square footage of all wall-mounted signs exceed __ percent of the square footage of the front façade.

a. Wall-mounted signs shall note exceed __ square feet of signage for every linear foot of the front façade of the portion of the building occupied by the use being advertised.  No wall-mounted sign shall exceed a vertical dimension (height) of greater than __ feet.

b. The maximum letter size of any wall-mounted sign shall be ___ feet.

c. Wall-mounted signs that are placed parallel to the building wall shall be permitted to project forward no more than six inches from the building nor be attached to a wall at a height of less than eight feet above the sidewalk or ground.

d. Canopies, perpendicular signage and awnings shall be permitted to overhang the pedestrian right-of-way, with a minimum vertical clearance of 8.5 feet, a maximum overall height of five feet, and a minimum setback of three feet from the curb line.  Lettering on a canopy or awning shall be limited to the valance area and shall not exceed 75 percent of the linear width of the valance.  The valance shall be no more than one foot in height, and the lettering on the valance shall be limited to six inches in height.

 3) Window Signs.  In addition to any signs or signs permitted pursuant to this section, window display sings shall be permitted to be attached to windows on the interior of the business use, provided that the aggregate area employed for such purpose shall not exceed __ percent of the total window area on which it is located.

                4) Signage must comply with all other applicable regulations in this Chapter.

 D. Parking.

 1. The following parking standards shall apply:

a. For retail and service commercial uses: 1 space per 250 square feet of GFA

b. For Garden Center Area: 1 parking space per 2,500 square feet of GFA

 E. Access:  Site access shall be limited to driveways from Route 46.

2. Age-Restricted Housing

The board had also asked for a set of zoning provisions regulating age-restricted housing.  The following  regulations are designed to enable the site to be developed with a maximum of 350 dwelling units in a three story design.  We attempted to follow the regulatory approach for multi-family housing that has already been established in the township ordinance.  The following is offered for consideration:

A. Area, bulk and density requirements.

       1. Lot area.  There shall be a minimum lot area of twenty (20) acres.

2. Density.  There shall be no more than nine dwelling units per acre. 

                3. Building coverage.  The total ground floor area of all buildings shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the lot area.

                4. Setback requirements.  

a. No building shall be located within fifty (50) feet of a public street or property line; provided that a minimum 200 foot setback shall be maintained along Maple Avenue.

b. A minimum 30 foot setback shall be maintained between multi-family buildings.

5. Height requirements.  No building shall exceed a height of three stories/thirty-five feet, including two residential floors above at-grade parking.

6. Dwelling unit requirements.  Dwelling units shall be as regulated in Section 16.60.020F.

 B. Building requirements.

1. Building plans and elevations shall show a variation in design to be achieved by the types of roof, heights of eaves and peaks, building materials and architectural treatment of the building façade that is utilized.

2. The maximum number of dwelling units per building shall be limited to 16 units.

3. Interior walls separating dwelling units shall be continuous and constructed in accordance with provisions of the Township Building Code.

C. Open space.  

1. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the entire tract shall be retained as common open space.  This may include active or passive recreation or public uses made up of undeveloped land, open space areas, water bodies, etc.

2. Any portion of the tract that is within 800 feet of the Passaic River shall be preserved as permanent open space. Said land area may be counted towards the common open space requirement and shall, at the option of the developer, be (1) conveyed to the Township of Montville, if acceptable to the Township, (2) conveyed to an organization established expressly for the ownership and maintenance of such open space, or (3) the open space shall be established by filing of maps showing the dedication of the land for such open space purpose.  Regardless of the method used, such land shall be set aside in perpetuity for the use of the residents of the development and such other persons as may be permitted.

 3. A physical pedestrian linkage shall be provided for residents of the development to access permanent open space features either on-site or on adjacent properties.

 D. Off-street parking.  Off-street parking shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 16.68 and Section 16.28.030.  

 E. Occupancy limitations.  Occupancy shall be as regulated in Section 16.60.020A.

 F. Accessory uses and buildings.

1. Uses.  Garages, clubhouses, swimming pools and other recreational facilities shall be permitted accessory uses.

2. Setbacks.  Accessory uses may be built into the principal building or separately constructed as hereinafter provided.  If separately constructed, accessory buildings shall be located at least thirty (30) feet from any other structure or building and shall meet the minimum yard requirements of the principal building. 

3. Height.  No accessory building shall exceed a height of fourteen (14) feet.

4. Design.  Architectural design and materials used in the construction of accessory buildings shall conform to those used in the construction of principal buildings.

 3. Self-Storage Facilities

 This section offers regulations pertaining to self storage facilities.  Such facilities are typically on lots no more than three acres.  Consequently, it would not be appropriate to zone the entire tract for such use.  Therefore, it is suggested that the portion of the tract fronting Route 46 be designated for such use, and the use be zoned in conjunction with  the age restricted housing noted above, if that is the direction the board wants to go.   This would place a low intensity use next to the multi family housing, and would still enable a significant area for attached residential development.  

 The regulations that are typically imposed on this type of use are consistent with the regulations that the township presently imposes on self storage facilities where they are allowed in the OB-1 Zone.  We would suggest these standards be imposed here.  We would suggest the location for this use be limited as follows:

 A. Route 46 frontage.  Lots containing self-storage facilities shall contain a minimum of 250 feet of frontage along Route 46.

                B. Maximum distance from Route 46.  Self-storage facilities shall be located within 400 feet of the Route 46 right-of-way.

It is also suggested that the township consider a new parking standard specifically for this type of use.  A conventional planning design standard that is imposed in ordinances calls for one parking space per 1,500 square feet of floor area. 

4. Hotel and Retail Mixed Use

A. Principal Permitted Uses: Banks, child care centers, convention center, financial institutions, hotels, professional and business offices, retail and service commercial uses, and restaurants (eating and drinking establishments).

                B. Accessory Uses: Off street parking and loading facilities including parking decks; signs; fences and walls; accessory retail sales in office and hotel buildings including news stands, tobacconists, gift shops, restaurants, beauty parlors, and related uses and activities; and other customary accessory uses and buildings which are clearly incidental to the principal uses and buildings permitted in this zone.

                C. Area and Bulk Regulations: Tract Development

                                1. Minimum tract area shall be 35 acres.

2. Minimum street frontage: 350 feet

                                3. Minimum lot depth: 400 feet

4. Building Setbacks to External Roads and Lot Lines.  Buildings shall be set back from the Route 46 right-of-way a minimum of 100 feet.  A minimum setback of 250 feet shall be maintained from any other public street and 150 feet from all other external property lines.

5. Minimum Setback to Internal Roads: 15 feet to curb line of any internal roads or driveways exclusive of loading areas.

6. Setbacks between buildings.  A minimum of 50 feet and a maximum of 100 foot setback shall be maintained between principal buildings on-site.  

                                7. Building Height.  The maximum building heights for uses in this zone shall be as follows:

a. Hotel:  maximum five stories/60 feet  

b. Office:  maximum five stories/60 feet 

c. Conference Center three story/45 feet

d. Other Uses: 35 feet.

8. Ancillary rooftop appurtenances.  Ancillary rooftop appurtenances including decorative features may exceed the height limitations set forth herein, provided that such appurtenances shall not exceed 15 feet in height and 20 percent of the area of the roof of such building.  All rooftop appurtenances shall b e screened by a parapet or similar screening element.

                                9. Maximum Building Coverage: __ percent

                                10. Maximum Impervious Coverage: __ percent

                                11. Multiple Buildings on a Lot: Permitted.

D. Landscape and Open Space.

1) A hierarchy of landscape features should be established for the site.  The main entrance driveway should include street trees on each side of the principle access roadway, and such trees should be different than the trees used in parking areas.  Spacing between trees shall be a maximum of 40 feet unless another vertical element, such as a decorative light fixture, is used between the trees, in which case a maximum 60 feet shall be permitted.  Trees along primary driveways should be in a formal arrangement, while informal planting may be provided along other driveways.

 2) Street trees and other plant material should be provided at the ends of parking bays. Landscaped islands should be at least six feet in width.

                3) Trees should be a 2.5 to 3 inch caliper.

4. Parking rows longer than 20 parking spaces should have a six foot wide landscape island to break the pavement.

5. A substantive planting plan for the site’s street frontage shall also be provided and consist of a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, plants and shrubs.  The design should be prepared to provide partial screening of the parking lot.  Shade trees shall be minimally 2.5 to 3 inch caliper.  Evergreen trees shall vary between 7 to 8 feet and 8 to 10 feet in height.  Shrubs shall be least 24 inches in height.

6. An area equivalent to a minimum of fifty percent of the tract’s area shall be devoted to landscape amenity.  A minimum of 75% of any parking garage roof must be landscaped per (insert citation from LEEDs info).

 7. Any portion of the tract that is within 800 feet of the Passaic River shall be preserved as permanent open space. Said land area may, at the option of the developer, be (1) conveyed to the Township of Montville, if acceptable to the Township, (2) conveyed to an organization established expressly for the ownership and maintenance of such open space, or (3) the open space shall be established by filing of maps showing the dedication of the land for such open space purpose.  Regardless of the method used, such land shall be set aside in perpetuity for the use of the residents of the development and such other persons as may be permitted.

 E. Pedestrian Movement.  A safe and convenient system of walkways accessible to all occupants shall be provided.  The site plan shall show the location of all pedestrian walkways.

 F. Parking.  The tract shall incorporate underground and/or deck parking as a principal approach to its overall design.  This shall ensure that the at-grade design will not consist of a substantial open lot with its associated expanse of blacktop.  Surface-level parking shall not constitute more than fifty percent of all on-site parking. 

G. Lighting.  Lighting for the entire development shall be provided along all walkways and interior roads, driveways and parking area.  The source of lighting shall be directed downward, away from buildings and adjoining streets.

H. Multiple retail buildings shall be permitted on site, provided that no single retail use occupant shall be permitted to have a maximum building footprint exceeding 40,000 square feet of gross floor area.

I. Supplemental Regulations Governing Specific Uses

1. Multiple Buildings On A Lot.  Multiple buildings on a lot shall be permitted.

2. Multiple Uses In A Building.  Multiple uses in a building shall be permitted.

3. Professional and Business Office Use.   Offices shall be limited to a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross floor area.  Permitted types of office uses shall include general business, medical and professional offices.  Ancillary uses within office buildings may include such activities as coffee shops, snack bars, news stands, convenience stores, child care facilities, health clubs, and other accessory uses as are customarily part of an office development. 

4. Hotels.   A hotel shall contain a maximum of 250 hotel rooms.  Such facility may include such facilities as restaurants, dining room areas, bars, conference rooms, convenience stores and other accessory uses as are customarily part of a hotel development.

5. Convention Center.  A convention center may contain a maximum of 80,000 square feet of floor area.

J. Signs.  See section on Signage in big box retail regulations.

K. Parking

The following parking standards shall apply, provided the planning board may grant approval to a lesser number of parking spaces if a shared parking analysis prepared by a qualified traffic consultant can indicate to the board’s satisfaction that a lesser number of parking spaces can adequately accommodate need due to the functioning of the mix of uses in the development: 

Retail/service commercial: 1 space/250 square feet of gross floor area.

Office uses:   1 space/300 square feet of gross floor area.

Hotel uses:   1 space/room.

Restaurants:   1 space/250 square feet of gross floor area.

Banks:    1 space/300 square feet of gross floor area.

L. General Design Standards

1. Building Form and Mass.  All proposed buildings should relate harmoniously to the site’s natural features and other on-site buildings.  Such features should be incorporated into the design of building form and mass, and assist in the determination of building orientation in order to preserve visual access to natural or man-made community focal points.

2. Large horizontal buildings, ie buildings with a linear dimension of more than 250 feet, should have a façade plane whose horizontal dimension is broken into segments through the use of a vertical element.  A visual and/or physical break should be provided minimally every 100 linear feet.  Offsets consisting of a break in the linear plan of the building of a minimum two feet shall be required. Related architectural elements which preclude a continuous uninterrupted facade building length may also be utilized to achieve a break in the linear dimension of the building walls in place of an offset if determined by the approving authority to achieve the same purpose. All building foundations shall be landscaped, as determined appropriate.

3. Buildings with expansive blank walls are prohibited.  Appropriate ornamental facade treatments should be imposed to ensure that such buildings are integrated with the rest of the development.

4. New buildings are encouraged to incorporate such building elements as entrances, corners, graphic panels, display windows, etc as a means to provide a visually attractive environment.  All at-grade commercial establishments shall be designed with a minimum 50 percent of their front façade devoted to glass within the first ten feet of building height.

5. Cornices, awnings, canopies, flag poles, signage and other ornamental features should be encouraged as a means to enhance the visual environment.  Such features may be permitted to project over pedestrian sidewalks, with a minimum vertical clearance of 8.5 feet, to within three feet of a curb.

6. Facade Treatment: a. A ‘human scale’ of development should be achieved at grade and along street frontages through the use of   such elements as windows, doors, columns, awnings and canopies.  

b. Multi-tenant buildings shall provide varied storefronts and such elements as noted above for all ground floor tenants.  Upper floors shall be architecturally compatible with ground floors through appropriate materials and colors.

c. Design emphasis should be placed on primary building entrances.  They should be vertical in character, particularly when there is the need to provide contrast with a long linear building footprint, and such details as columns and framing should be utilized to reinforce verticality.

d. Side and rear elevations should receive architectural treatments comparable to front facades when public access or public parking is provided next to the buildings.

e. Rhythms should carry through a building’s facade, such as store-front patterns, window spacing, entrances, canopies or awnings, etc.

f. Street facade elevations of the parking deck shall receive architectural treatment that complements the adjacent buildings facades.  For example, window cut-outs, framing, and other architectural vernacular detailing should be used to reinforce the complementary appearance of the parking deck, integrating its design into the overall project. The first floor of any such structure shall contain retail/commercial uses at curb level, and the architecture shall reflect the commercial use for a minimum of 15 feet above the sidewalk level.

7. Material and Texture

a. A variety of materials may be appropriate.  Masonry, which works well at the base of a building, can vary in size, color and texture, and enables the provision of a decorative pattern or band.  Above 12 feet, it can be substituted with other suitable materials.

 b. The use of fabric or metal canopies is to be encouraged, especially over storefronts, at entrances or over display windows.  

 c. Integration of small-scale graphics, where appropriate, into the facade is encouraged.

 8. Lighting

a. The use of creative lighting schemes to highlight building facades and related areas of a site shall be encouraged. The use of traditional style lanterns and similar fixtures also shall be encouraged. Exterior neon lights and lighting generating glare and unnecessary night-glow impacts shall be prohibited.

 b. Whenever possible light poles should be integrated into landscaped islands.

  9. Streetscape Design

 a. The use of street furniture (benches, tables, trash receptacles, etc.) shall be encouraged throughout the development, provided the materials used are consistent with the overall concept of the building design.

b. Sidewalks should have a width of at least 10 feet along main pedestrian paths where active pedestrian corridors are located and active pedestrian movements are encouraged, and located along building frontages so as to tie the various building elements together.  Wider sidewalks may be designed for special places such as plazas or courts.

 c. Decorative imprint roadway surfacing shall be provided at all primary pedestrian building entrances and crosswalks between buildings.

 10. Landscape and Open Space

 a. A hierarchy of landscape features should be established for the site.  The main entrance driveway(s) should include street trees on each side of the roadway, and such trees should be different than the trees used in parking areas.  Spacing between trees shall be a maximum 40 feet unless another vertical element, such as a decorative light fixture or blade sign, is used between the trees, in which case a maximum 60 foot shall be permitted.  Trees along primary driveways should be in a formal arrangement, while informal planting may be provided elsewhere within the district.

 b. Street trees and other plant material should be provided at the ends of parking bays.  Landscaped islands should be at least 6 feet in width.  This section does not apply to parking spaces in parking garages.

 c. Trees should be a 2.5 to 3 inch caliper.  

 d. On-grade parking with parking rows longer than 20 parking spaces should have a 6 foot wide landscaped island to break the pavement.  This section does not apply to parking spaces in parking garages.

 e. Foundation plantings including trees and shrubs should be planted along the parking deck walls, to break up the extended building wall.  

 f. A substantive planting plan for the site’s street frontage shall also be provided and consist of a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, plants and shrubs.  The design should be prepared to provide partial screening of the parking lot.  Shade trees shall be minimally 2.5 to 3 inch caliper.  Evergreen trees shall vary between 7 to 8 feet and 8 to 10 feet in height.  Shrubs shall be least 24 inches in height.

 g. Any portion of the tract that is within 800 feet of the Passaic River shall be preserved as permanent open space. Said land area may, at the option of the developer, be (1) conveyed to the Township of Montville, if acceptable to the Township, (2) conveyed to an organization established expressly for the ownership and maintenance of such open space, or (3) the open space shall be established by filing of maps showing the dedication of the land for such open space purpose.  Regardless of the method used, such land shall be set-aside in perpetuity for the use of the residents of the development and such other persons as may be permitted.

END MEMO

PGDP07-15 – Pine Brook Realty, 12 Rt. 46, B: 160, L: 4 – Referral & rezoning request for FAR% increase

Present: Mr. Schepis, Esq.

He indicated that the Pine Brook Motel site and owner of Evergreen Realty site acquired already, and that the developer is also close to reaching a deal for the car wash property also. 

Photos displayed reflected other areas where this type of design was created.  The applicant is looking to create a project that would redevelop this area.  Economics drive land use development.  Present zoning doesn’t allow redevelopment since price is so high, smaller development wouldn’t be economically.  Being confined to FAR percent would be a no build.  Two options:  pursue a zoning ordinance to allow amending B3 with increase to 35% and/or to see D variance from Board of Adjustment.  Want to create a new zone that would have same parameters except for increased FAR.

Even if zoning ordinance is modified is that jurisdiction is at Planning Board vs Board of Adjustment, and would still have control over parking and building coverage.  These are the parameters.

John Monturi, Project Architect

Explained proposals, indicating the type of development, not a strip mall with a lot of stores.  This layout is a look and what was done in other centers is to create an ambiance that takes it to another level.  Will show other centers and not exactly will be done here, but to design a center to get feedback, and work together with the right design.  The idea is that it is not a center that will be a box with fancy façade.  Materials, shades and shadows make it whether it works well or becomes a box of materials on façade.  People have to enjoy center, and you get better retailers.  This is joint goal in developing this area.

Indicated his design would encompass streetscape lighting, decorative lights on building and would provide a positive feeling.  Reviewed site he worked on that would be similar.  His design reflects this site as a cascading building design.

He indicated he understands Pine Brook Motel and is site of redevelopment in accordance with Burgis report for Rt. 46.

Recognize, per Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP, that retail is permitted.  He raised some significant issues.  On sites of this size, FAR is about .25.  Concerned though about magnitude of project and would want to encourage more landscaping.  Here we have 96% coverage, where code is 55%.  Talk about 55% building coverage where 20% coverage is provided.  He is concerned about intensity of use, and how do you plan in landscaping amenities.  Before speaking to FAR, we need to speak about these issues, and get into the specifics of how the site functions.  While it is nice that certain types of stores may be interested.  It is early in game, or is it speculative at this time. 

Mr. Monturi indicated that you have to start somewhere: this is a major road and he did design treatment to the back of the building to make it attractive in facing a main corridor/roadway.  As far as coverage goes, they all go hand in hand.  Parking on this site is 4 cars per 1,000.  Can we put more trees in middle of island.   Could the building be moved closer.   All questions of site plan design. The lot is a tapered lot and tapers down and that is why building needs to be designed like this.  Cannot get more parking or different design based on shape of lot unless you redesign building with a store 60’deep.  Reality is that the site constraints are forcing where parking is and where shape evolves.   Can parking spaces be lost; can we pick up more trees and landscaping and lose some of the parking, walkways?  This is the next step.  Brainstorm how this goes.  If you do it with 25% FAR it won’t happen.  Would have to decrease the depth of the building to accommodate parking aisle. 

If architect hasn’t seen how extensive this report is, we should discuss planner’s report.  Development is driven by economics and price of property is too high.  This isn’t going to drive our decision.  Mr. Schepis:  this is a unique opportunity for this property.  He sat through all of the hearings on motel and hotel and this is the opportunity to address this.  Pine Brook didn’t approach buyer.  This client approached them.  It was his idea.  They could rent it out, and this Pine Brook Motel will exist.  The only thing that will move it is someone who buys up the whole lot and redevelop it.  Deborah Nielson:  concerned about being held ransom, and assumes Planning Board will just accept  96% coverage based on this?

Ladis Karkowsky:  concerned also that Planning Board is being given an ultimatum.  Understand that the applicant would want this board to change zoning requirements and we are willing to sit down and work, but like ultimatums.  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  it is an argument that aesthetics are being improved.  Mr. Schepis:  would recommend this rezoning study be brought right down to the river in Parsippany which is about 7 acres of lot area.  Also, this area was part of the Rt. 46 Redevelopment and furthers that purpose.  Someone from private sector needs to put the plan together.  This is an opportunity before you. Deborah Nielson:  no one said this is terrible visible sight, but we are concerned on density and traffic concerns and we are looking at retail along Changebridge and shouldn’t be developed in a vacuum.  Is it visibly good?  Yes, but not sure of magnitude.  Feel this site can take some height.  This is all one story, and think this board would work with applicant. 

Mr. Schepis:  zoned retail.  Only issue presenting in this request is an increase in an FAR.  Willing to look at a project with an increased FAR.  Planning Board indicated we haven’t even looked at whether or not there is adequate parking. 

Gary Lewis:  not an indication of feeling, the additional building space adds 10,000 in change minus car wash property.  What is affect of lot area without building space?  Green space would decrease FAR.  Sacrifice 10,000 sq. ft.  and you lower percentage.

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  indicated he would make suggestion that you can lose a small amount and pick up landscape elements.  If the Planning Board agrees, can have a technical meeting with applicant and try to iron things out and if need review this at subcommittee meeting.  Gary Lewis:  indicated he favors concept of this type of application, and not opposed to looking at value of FAR.  The board isn’t giving control up even possibility considering when there are variances all over the site.  You have room to talk before the Board.  Would recommend we go with the approach the planner recommends.  Mr. Montouri:  he is practical on what works at both ends.  There are some ways to lose square footage and make more landscaped area in front, feels there is a way, but the issue is at what ‘number’?

Planning Board indicated that perhaps applicant went too far on FAR, and had no problem with authorizing the planner to work with the applicant and come back to the Planning Board.  Motion made by: John Rosellini:  sit down and work with technical reviews; Second by: Gary Lewis; Roll call vote: unanimous

Mr. Schepis:  indicated you don’t lose any control by increasing FAR.  He feels he could justify this relief at a Board of Adjustment.  He prefers though to work in Planning Board process vs Board of Adjustment.  Mr. Burgis authorized to meet with applicant, and look at the corridor this land is involved with.

Rescheduled to Oct. 11th

Motion made by: John Visco; Seconded by: Gary Lewis

Roll call vote: unanimous

Burgis report of 9-24-07…

The applicant, Pine Brook Realty Investment, LLC, has submitted a request to rezone Block 162, Lots 4, 6 and 7 such that its regulations would mirror those for the Highway Business - B-3 zone, but permits a higher floor area ratio (FAR).  The subject site is located along the Route 46 corridor, but also fronts on Bloomfield Avenue and Changebridge Road.  The Pine Brook Motel, Evergreen Realty, and Park Center IV currently occupy the site.

Statutory Criteria for a Zoning Amendment

The Municipal Land Use Law provides that “a governing body may adopt or amend a zoning ordinance relating to the nature and extent of the uses of land and of buildings and structures thereon” (40:55D-62a).  This section also calls for a zoning ordinance to be either “substantially consistent” with a municipal master plan “or designed to effectuate” the plan.  The statute also provides that “the governing body may adopt a zoning ordinance or amendment or revision thereto which in whole or part is inconsistent with or not designed to effectuate” the master plan, “but only by affirmative vote of the majority of the full authorized membership of the governing body with the reasons of the governing body for so acting set forth in a resolution…” (40:55D-62a).

The statute requires that “the zoning ordinance shall be drawn with reasonable consideration to the character of each district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and to encourage the most appropriate use of land” (40:55D-62a).

Submission Details

In addition to the attorney’s correspondence, application, and related documentation, the applicant has submitted a draft site plan to illustrate the manner in which the site could be developed, and photos of a commercial facility similar to that which the applicant is proposing.

Property Description

The site is bound by roadways on three sides, including Bloomfield Avenue to the north, Changebridge Road to the east, and Route 46 to the south.  Lot 4 occupies 0.13 acres and contains Evergreen Realty, while Lot 6 is a 3.1-acre lot with the Pine Brook Motel.  Lot 7 is a 2.05-acre lot and contains a commercial development known as Park Center IV.

Surrounding Development

The site is in the Route 46 commercial corridor, though there are a number of residences on the western side of Waxberg Lane, between Bloomfield Avenue and Changebridge Road to the north of the site.  The surrounding land uses also include industrial uses north and south of the site, and commercial development to the east, south and west. 

Proposed Development

The applicant seeks to remove all structures located on Lots 4 and 6 in order to construct a new 51,170 square foot commercial building with a variety of retail, restaurant and service oriented businesses.  It appears there will be no changes to Lot 7 except for the potential connecting of the lots in the future by two cross easements. 

The applicant identifies the proposal as a “lifestyle center”, though the proposed project in not consistent with the common usage of this term.  Lifestyle centers are characterized by their higher standards for design, focus on upscale stores and dining, and spaces that mimic an urban setting.  Typically, they are also significantly larger than what is proposed.  Based on the draft site plan submitted, the proposed development is more similar to a strip mall in its layout, although the prospective uses are akin to uses found in lifestyle centers.

Township of Montville Master Plan Documents

The 1993 Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan places the subject site in the Highway Business category.  Generally, this category seeks retail development, intending to serve those traveling along Route 46, but also for local residents.  The Master Plan was re-examined in 1997 and 2003, and did not call for any changes to the site. 

The 1999 Redevelopment Area Analysis for the Route 46/Bloomfield Avenue Corridor identified the motel site be designated as part of a redevelopment area.  The study notes the lack of architectural character along this corridor, and specifically mentions the motel site as not being complementary to the area.  As a basis for the site’s inclusion in the redevelopment area, the report notes:

“there are five building distributed throughout the site in an inefficient arrangement which includes limited light and air due to the close proximity of some of the buildings to each other, too many excessively wide curb cuts and an undefined parking arrangement in the front of the site.  The site is also underutilized given the fact that approximately one third of the site is vacant.”

Neither plan documents make recommendations regarding floor area ratio.

Township of Montville Zoning Ordinance

The site is in the B-3 Business District, which permits a variety of business, commercial and industrial uses.  The applicant has submitted a list of potential tenants of the proposed development, primarily consisting of retail, but also including restaurants, banks, and commercial services.  All of the potential uses are permitted in the B-3 zone.

Though the applicant is seeking a rezoning that would eliminate the necessity of a ‘d’(3) variance for the proposed FAR, the proposed development would require several ‘c’ variances as detailed below.  The following table details the compliance of the concept plan with the regulations of the B-3 Zone:

Zone Regulation

Required

Provided

Min. Lot Area (sf)

43,750

145,134

Max. Depth (ft)

250

301.99(e)

Min. Depth of Corner Lot (ft)

200

na

Min. Lot Width (ft)

     @ Street Line

     @ Building Line

175

175

516

516

Min. Front Yard (ft)

40

110.5

Min. Rear Yard (ft)

50

47(v)

Min. Side Yard (ft) (one/both)

20/ --

20/55

Max. Building Ht. (ft)

30’ + Appurtenances <10’

30/36

(one story)

Max. Lot Coverage (%)

20

35(v)

Max. Impervious Coverage (%)

55

96(v)

Max. Floor Area Ratio (%)

25

35(v)

Min. Distance Between Bld. (ft)

Ht. of the taller of 2 Bld ±35’

103.5

(e) – existing nonconformity                              (v) – variance required

Additional Variances: In addition to the variances listed in the table above, it appears from the conceptual plan that variances will also be necessary for the location of parking and traffic aisles in relation to the street, property lines, and the proposed building. 

Parking/Loading: The applicant has provided a parking analysis for two scenarios.  One of the scenarios is for a development consisting entirely of retail, which would require 284 stalls.  The other mixes retail and restaurant uses, and requires 418 stalls.  The applicant proposes 219 stalls and would require variances for both scenarios.  Additionally, the applicant would require a variance for not provided any loading stalls, where four are required.

Further, if the applicant did connect the new development with the existing development on Lot 7, several parking stalls would be eliminated.  The proposed cross easements would also raise several concerns regarding vehicular and pedestrian circulation.

Comment

The rezoning request is not accompanied by any planning analysis or report supporting the increase in FAR.  Generally, one-story retail buildings are developed at FAR’s similar to the code’s current restriction.  This is a function of the need to balance building area, parking, circulation aisles and landscape amenities.  Consequently, retail FAR’s are often within the range of 0.20 to 0.25.    

The impropriety of the request for the magnitude of the proposed increased FAR is exemplified by the project’s excessive impervious coverage (96% proposed, compared to the 55% permitted), and building coverage (55% proposed, compared to the 20% permitted).  The Board and the applicant should reflect upon these ratios and the need for landscape amenity and sufficient parking before the Board commits to an increased FAR.  There needs to be a better balance between an increase in floor area and ensuring an attractive project with sufficient landscaping and related features; this is particularly critical for the success of a so-called lifestyle center.  Until the applicant submits information addressing this concern (overall intensity of use of the site), it is not recommended that the Board pursue this request at this time.

Retail use/Industrial Zones – Discussion Report

Burgis Report of 9-25-07 follows end of summary minutes.

Mr. Rosellini indicated that he felt the report rendered by Mr. Burgis should be tagged to the Montville Lifestyle Center rezoning requet, which is located on Kramer/Changebridge.  He indicated he has a building in this corridor, and we should be discussing the entire community.  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  if there is an interest distinct, you should recluse from the hearing. 

NOTE: Mr. Rosellini stepped off this hearing….

Mr. Burgis summarized his report.  He indicated the percentage and/or cap could be larger, but he thinks about 5 or 10% of industrial works, with a cap at 2,500 sq.ft.  It can be larger than this but then that depends on how much change you want in an industrial zone.  He indicated he rode around township to see Industrial zones and developed a map he handed out that reflects all of the industrial zones in the community.  He recommended imposing standards, if you are within 100’ of residential developments so that these places are not overwhelmed with traffic.  It is an affect to surrounding neighborhoods.  Looked at areas, and found this type of buffer worked. 

Deborah Nielson:  Is this a blanket recommendation for the entire township regardless of where buildings exist?  Burgis indicated it is for entire town, but the use must be subordinate to principal use.  Obviously anyone want to do this would be required to come back before the Planning Board since parking needs differ.  Have to come back to Planning Board approval due to parking standards.

Gary Lewis:  don’t remember what Fairfield’s ordinance is but thought it similar, and knew of only one court case in this town and that had to do with sale of high performance tires, but not the installation of same, and wouldn’t want to encourage that type of activity.   

Opened to public…

John Rosellini: Unique thing that we have is to look at Changebridge Road/Rt. 202, and the pockets of industrial that exist with varied different uses.  Main corridors are Changebridge and Rt. 202.  There are pockets of strip mall.  Many are non-conforming uses.   Felt that Planning Board should have looked at the corridors to assist in higher retail type uses.  Buildings existing are small sp retail percentage would be small, and most do not produce their own goods in the building.  Felt the entire intent was to look at the retail use, similar to the Kramer/Changebridge rezoning request, and look at the highest and best use and consider eliminating industrial zones in these areas.  Parking will control 90% of the site.  Take some of these uses, make them conforming, and look at other areas which are becoming non-desiring uses. 

Gary Lewis:  some of these properties won’t be able to support retail, some would, and why are the two approaches not compatible.  Deborah Nielson:  recommendation is a limit of retail being increased in industrial zones.  Gary Lewis:  Fairfield contains no limitation on manufacturing being connected to retail, but allows whatever is handled, distributed or manufactured on site to be retail. 

Deborah Nielson:  this amendment was geared toward allowing some retail sales within industrial zones and was meant to allow flexibility and doesn’t replace the overall corridor study that will be undertaken for Changebridge, Stiles, Old Bloomfield and Rt. 202.  The amendment was based on a request to look at the percentage of retail vs industrial, specifically a possible seed and grain company on Indian Lane East. 

John Rosellini:  then how can Planning Board address Kramer/Changebridge for rezoning? 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  this ordinance provides for an increase of percentage with a cap on it.  Deborah Nielson:  have no problem with this draft. 

Gary Lewis:  even 10% is not a lot, and if you require products to be manufactured, this exercise is useless.  I would be prepared to move this and even 10% with cap at max. 2500 sq. ft.  and allow it in industrial zones as long as it is accessory to primary, acknowledging that is doesn’t substitute to corridor study. 

 John Rosellini: Feels this is a wasted ordinance.   

John Visco:  we should go forward with this, allowing the 10% of area for retail, with a cap of no more than 2500 sq. ft, allow in manufacturing and distributing in the industrial zones, and tie in that we should move forward on looking at the corridors.

Board polled and all were in agreement.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated this is a small step but we should move to have this drafted into an ‘ordinance form’.  Motion made by: Gary Lewis, Seconded by: Tony Speciale

Roll call vote: unanimous

Burgis report on 9-25-07

The planning board has requested that this office assess the propriety of increasing the amount of permitted retail activity that occurs in buildings where there is the manufacture of goods on-site.  The analysis reveals that the township’s ordinance limitation on retail sales of such goods is very restrictive, effectively discouraging such activity.  This conclusion is based upon a review of the township ordinance and contrasting it with other ordinances that permit retail sales in industrial buildings.

The following is offered for consideration:

The zoning ordinance permits the retail sale of goods manufactured on site in the B-5, I-1A, I-1B and I-2 zones, subject to the following provisions set forth in Footnote 35 of Schedule C Permitted Uses:

Said retail sales shall take place entirely within the confines of a building.

The area devoted to retail sales shall be limited to one percent of the floor area occupied by the firm or establishment, or 500 square feet, whichever is less.

There shall be at least one off street parking space for each 100 square feet of floor area devoted to retail sales.  The required number of spaces shall be determined separately from other operations in the building.

Said retail sales shall be conducted from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday only.

A review of similar ordinances reveals that, where permitted, such uses may devote substantially more space for retail sales than is permitted in Montville.  In Parsippany, for example, they allow up to 1 percent with a 1,500 square foot cap on retail space in one zone, and in another zone they simply allow up to 25 percent of the total warehouse and distribution area floor space to be devoted to retail sales of goods manufactured on-site.  A few municipalities allow up to five and in some cases ten percent of the total area to be devoted to retail sales. 

The analysis suggests that the current cap of 500 square feet of area allowed to be devoted to retail sales is highly restrictive.  If the municipality were interested in encouraging this activity, it is appropriate to limit the size and scale of such an operation to ensure that the character of the zone is not altered.  However, it is reasonable to increase the amount of allowable floor area to be devoted to such use in order to make it feasible.  It is recommended that the board consider increasing the standards in the ordinance to a maximum of five to ten percent, with a total cap of 2,500 square feet of area that may be devoted to such retail use.  This represents the typical size of a small retail space, and should therefore be sufficient for this type of activity, particularly if we are dealing with goods such as furniture that require a significant area for display.

It is also suggested that, given the distribution of the zones in question (B-5, I-1A, I-1B and I-2 zones), and their relationship to some existing residential uses and residential zones, it may be appropriate for the township to impose an additional restriction that prohibits retail sales whenever a site is within 100 feet of a residential use or zone.

Note: Mr. Rosellini returned to the podium

John Rosellini:  as to the street lighting issue previously discussed.  Questioned why the township wasn’t addressing JCP&L to ask for the Towaco lighting fixture as being approved by them.  Deborah Nielson indicated that they did and they were not successful. 

PMN07-01 WILLIAM IELLIMO – 30 Changebridge Rd. – B: 82. Lot: 8.01 – Two minor subdivision w/variances – Notice Acceptable & carried from 8-9-07               ACT BY:  9-27-07

Richard Sherman, Esq.

Minor subdivision for two lots for new single family dwelling on each lot.  Need variance for lot frontage with 200’.  Asking for waiver of sidewalks.  Revision date of 8-07.

Mr. Fred Meola, PE – credentials accepted

Property identification area reviewed.  Drawings dated 8-21-07.  Sheet #1 is existing conditions.  Old Farm stand

Board professionals sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq. 

Will comply with Stan Omland, PE report.  As to waivers with sidewalk and lighting, but if Planning Board want sidewalk and light, don’t think it is necessary at this time.  Will provide contribution though. 

Will also comply with resolving the issue as it relates to the samples dealing with arsenic on property. 

Burgis assoc. memo discussed.  Mr. Burigs:  voiced concern of issue of tree preservation noting there is a large area for dwelling, on 8.02 and the removing of 6 trees.  Is there a way to shift this around?  Mr. Meola indicated: Trees talked about are pines that are not maintained, centers are dying.  Really would rather do this and would supplement with additional landscaping.  Will supply placement factor and will work with board professionals on this.  Applicant agreed.

Variance is minimum, 750 sq. ft.  Two property lines discussed.  One lot is a little our of parallel, which causes the deficiency and is very minimal. 

As to negative impact on neighbor:  applicant thinks lot is reasonable with large piece of property and two lots will fit in with neighborhood.  Applicant moving houses back will look better. 

C2 as it relates to benefits as it relates to slight deficiency and due to irregular site also would qualify as C1.

John Rosellini:  the sight distance coming out of driveway on 8.03, when you come out of parking lot, do we have sight distance.   Where we have two driveways in this area, wouldn’t a common drive work? 

Mr. Meilo:  driveway is in this location already.  Mr. Russo:  sight distance is ok.  Can move pine tree near driveway.  Discussion ensued.  Planning Board determined that the board engineer visit on site to determine how to improve line of sight, and applicant agreed to comply with his findings.

Deborah Nielson:  is there a site well for farm on site?  Applicant indicated that none exist.

Florence Hopp:  wells were covered over with water lines came in.  There are no file drains. 

Mr. Rosellini: Because church driveway is there, should we consider sight triangle on this corner and have this maintained?   Applicant will agree to this.

Opened to public….

Mr. Carney – resident, indicated he doesn’t want to see streetlights and sidewalks installed.  He already has concerns with lighting on church parking lots.  His property is on southern side.  Also doesn’t feel sidewalks would be required. 

Linda White to resolve the lighting on church property that has a resolution to close at a certain time.

Motion to close to public unanimously accepted.

Made by: Larry Hines, Seconded by: Gary Lewis

Michael Carroll, Esq.:  state info on negative impact if any?  Mr. Meilo – there are none as they relate to any master plan, neighborhood, replacement trees would help adjacent neighbor and development is consistent with neighborhood schemes.

Applicant also agreed to plant some type of evergreen on side of property to assist light mitigation/screening.  All landscaping is subject to board professionals, noting there are three homes that should be buffered on southerly side of property.    Applicant also agreed to ‘No further subdivision restriction’ and to comply with all agency reports.

John Rosellini - motion to approve subject to compliance with testimony offered, additional landscaping, on site meeting with board professionals, site triangle agreement, deed restriction, bonding for sidewalks and lighting, granting of all waivers and variances requested, compliance with all agency findings.  Seconded by: Tony Speciale  Roll call vote: Ladis Karkowsky, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis, John Visco, John Rosellini   Resolution set for Oct. 25.

NEW BUSINESS                                                                                 

 Planning Board Meeting of 12-13-07 – Linda White asked about rescheduling this Thursday night meeting to the Wednesday night before since there was a town function that night.  Mrs. White was told to put this on the agenda at a later date when more Planning Board members are present to discuss. 

                                               

CONCEPTS

None

Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion made by: John Rosellini, Seconded by: Larry Hines

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

Absent w/explanation

Absent w/explanation

Absent w/explanation

 

 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack