PB Minutes 2-14-08 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2008

ROLL CALL

Mr. Maggio - present                         Mr. Karkowsky - present

Ms. Kull - absent                         Mr. Daughtry - absent

Ms. Nielson – entrance noted              Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari – present                         Mr. Lewis - present

Mr. Hines - present                         Mr. Canning (alt#2) - present

                                                            Mr. Speciale (alt#1) – present

Also Present:

Michael Carroll, Esq.

Stan Omland, PE

Joe Burgis, Planner

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

None

PLANNING BUSINESS

Carried Hearings Announced:

PSPP/FC07-09 – BOILING SPRINGS SAVINGS BANK – Site Plan & variance application –   Carried w/notice to: 3/13/08

           

            Motion made by: John Visco

            Seconded by: Russ Lipari

            Roll call:  Unanimous

Towaco Center – Update from Planner re: Status of Ordinance

(Ordinance Discussion scheduled 2-28-08)

Mrs. White summarized the subcommittee meeting on the Master Plan and proposed ordinance, indicating that this document is not available this evening,  and Mr. Burgis is taking the citizen’s concerns and board’s comments under review, and will address them in the final draft of the ordinance which we hope to have for the February 28th agenda. 

Mr. Burgis elaborated indicating that a number of comments were raised on Towaco plan from prior master plan hearing.  At that meeting, he indicated he feels we could adhere to the coverage factors in the CWR area, and this updated ordinance should be able to reflect that.  He indicated the other issue is the buffer requirements and how to extend these buffers to ensure there is adequate buffer around any area.  The third area related to ratio of housing and retail and he would address this concern also.  He was also looking into the concerns raised on school impact, and is obtaining numbers to look at impact, and other alternative ways to address this.  He is also reviewing the County traffic study to see how these improvements relate to this area, and hopes that the final ordinance draft will be available for next meeting. 

Mrs. White also indicated that at this meeting, the subcommittee discussed the overall master plan, how to proceed, as well as the many rezoning requests pending for aged and mixed use rezoning, as well as several other areas.  It was felt that we should at minimum begin with a‘re-examination’ of the land use element, addressing the rezoning issues first, and Mr. Burgis was asked to submit  a proposal with itemization of the ways this process would go forward.  This will be available at the 2/28/08 meeting.

PGDP07-15 – Pine Brook Realty, 12 Rt. 46, B: 160, L: 4 –rezoning request for FAR% increase – Old Bloomfield Ave. – Rescheduled to:  3-13-08

Changebridge Rezoning (Shoppes @ Montville) – Rescheduled to: 3/13/08

JCP&L Lighting Fixture:  Mrs. White indicated that the DRC reviewed the two JCP&L lighting fixtures for residential developments and recommended that the Township use the: Ornate Acorn Style Post top luminary with 12’9” ornate fiber glass pole. 

Motion made by to adopt this fixture:  Larry Hines

Seconded: Russ Lipari

Mr. Lipari asked if the Township of Montville Committee was involved in this.  Mrs. White summarized that the Township Engineer was involved in this selection of the residential lighting fixtures and that we were asked to ‘select’ from the two he recommended.   

 (Note:  Gary Lewis entered)

Mr. Karkowsky voiced some concern about some reports and/or lack of reports until after the board process is almost complete.  This does create problems and delays at Planning Board level.  Another issue raised was the statement of addressing a natural resource and how is this regulated and/or addressed and most importantly the affects?  Should there be a reason for their concerns?  And if so, we should hear them.   

Discussion ensued on comments offered about concerns with incompatibility of Boiling Springs with adjacent listed HPRC home site in view of length of hearings already conducted on this site.  Mr. Omland indicated this is a courtesy board, and they have right to offer their input by expertise.  Mr. Lewis indicated that perhaps you may want to consider certain architectural changes noting that a modern looking bank next to historic structure may be something to consider and the Board has to decide this at that point.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated that we need to have their comments early on in the process not towards finish of a case. 

(Deb Nielson entered)

Mr. Lewis thought we should tell the applicant of their comments so that they can review this.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated he would like a memo sent indicating we needed faster reports and turn around periods.  Not all of the applications filed at Planning Board will go to the HPRC, but on those that do, we need a quicker turnaround.   Discussion ensued.  It was decided that perhaps we should sit with Chair of HPRCF and subcommittee and review the development process, reporting process and work towards commons goals in this regard.  Mrs. White to coordinate this.

WAIVERS

PMISC08-05 A/S Pool Supply & Service – 28 Rt. 46 Unit 1 – B: 176, L: 4.03 –

 retail sales of pool supplies – 1,086 s,f, - 3 employees – hours of operation 10am-

6pm Mon-Sat; 10am-3pm Sun – signage to be in compliance with approved theme (Tiffany Plaza)

Motion made by:  Mr. Speciale

Seconded: Mr. Maggio

Roll call:  Unanimous

Ladis Karkowsky:  thought that with the parking at Bonefish as it is, perhaps we should look at the plan to determine the deferred parking and see if they need to have this additional parking installed.  Mrs. White to review plan.

PMISC08-06 Pilates at the Plaza – 28 Rt. 46 Unit 1 – B: 176, L: 4.03 – fitness

studio – 1,087 s.f. – 3 employees – hours of operation 8am-7pm Mon-Sat – signage to be in compliance with approved theme (Tiffany Plaza)

Present: Rob Carchan, Andréa Carchan

Mr. Carchan indicated this is a one to one basis, and it is not going to be an operating gym.  It is based on scheduling of appointments.  There will be two to three people at a time.  Right now, there are 15 parking spaces in front and 14 spaces along Rt. 46.  In process of getting into this place and to have it predicated on working something out in later date. Planning Board wanted to stress that this operator should make arrangements for your customers and your needs in view of board’s concern.   

Mr. Maggio:  are there going to be Pilates classes?  Mr. Carchan indicated it would be more personal trainer instructing the client.  In the morning, there are maybe five people at the most plus a couple of trainers.

Mr. Hines:  it will not be an aerobics class?  Ms. Carchan:  it will be six at the most with 2 employees.  Mr. Lipari:  how long are sessions?  Ms. Carchan:  one hour class, and mostly in morning and at night.  Mr. Lewis:  board is looking for your needs, and asked is there enough parking?  Mr. Karkowsky:  morning and afternoon is not the problem.  Tenant is aware of the parking situation.  Ms. Carchan indicated that the alteration will have back entrance, and that they can use the back entrance. 

Mr. Omland:  if they have access to the back, want to be sure there is adequate lighting in the rear.  The landlord should evaluate that.  The Carchans will coordinate accordingly.

 

Motion made by:  Gary Lewis

Seconded: Mr. Speciale

Roll call:  Unanimous

           

RESOLUTIONS

PMSP/F02-28 FOREST RIDGE – B: 109, L: 30 – Alpine Rd. –extensions of approvals to 12/8/08 Eligible:  Roll call:  Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Russ Lipari, Marie Kull, Art Maggio, John Visco, Gary Lewis (Mr. Speciale and Mr. Canning)

Motion made by:  Russ Lipari

Seconded: Art Maggio

Roll call:  Unanimous

CORRESPONDENCE

None

MINUTES

Minutes of 1/24/07 – Eligible:  Art Maggio, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Art Daughtry, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Ladis Karkowsky, Tony Speciale, Vic Canning

Motion made by: Gary Lewis

Seconded: John Visco

Roll call:  Unanimous

INVOICES

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $120, $90, $120, $60, $30, $60, $60, $30, $90, $67.50, $67.50, $202.50, $405, $67.50, $101.25, $67.50, $67.50, $30

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $312.50

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $420, $232.50

Burgis Associates – O/E for: $2,130.00, $1,080.00, $150, $8,344.00, $5,192.50, Trust for: $360, $2,160 (Avila), $390

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $60

Mr. Hines asked about the one invoice $1080.  Mrs. White will sign, but the invoices for $2,1430, $1,080, $3,344 and $5,192.50 will be held for further review.

Motion made by: John Visco

Seconded: Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

None

OLD BUSINESS

Note:  Mr. Carroll swore in the board’s staff and professionals.

PMSP/F03-02 LAUREL GREEN - 10 Rathbun Rd. - B: 39, L: 63 - 3 lot subdivision – review of drainage design system – Courtesy Notice Acceptable

Present: 

Michael Sullivan, Esq.

Marc Walker, PE

Jerry Nardone, Developer

Mrs. White summarized review before Planning Board this evening as it relates to the drainage design, deferring to Mr. Omland to update Planning Board.  Mr. Omland indicated that the structure was installed outside of the ground.  There were grading issues and some drainage issues.  There were several meetings with the developer with members of the Planning Board and the property owners.  On 1/29/08, there was another meeting at which time many new adjustments made.  At this meeting, the neighborhood agreed with the latest plan encouraging developer to address the concerns:  staging of equipment, vehicles, which will now all be parked internally in the site.  Only time cars will be on Rathbun Road is when there is construction in roadway, at which time Mr. Nardone agreed to provide some kind of notification to residents so they are aware. 

Mr. Sullivan:  applicant agrees with all of these recommendations, and changes made and they will be adhered to.

Mr. Omland:  applicant also agreed to meet with residents on additional buffering and landscaping.  The developer offered some soil to soften the grade, and not sure it was accepted by residents.

David Roughgarden:  spoke to Mr. Nardone and agreed he will remove two trees, he will come in with some soil and make sure that the water will drain in the basin.  The other issue is back by the detention basin and another swale will be created so water will run into brook vs. his property. 

How far is the tank being relocated? 

Marc Walker:  the tank will be 3.9’ from property.  Right now it is on an angle.  From 16”, it will be 30”.  At the request of the neighbors, applicant agreed to incorporate the structure into the existing storm drain.  They are putting structure and sliding under roadway up to back of curb.  The inlet will be supported by this water quality structure.  Together they have moved this as far away as possible.  Cross section indicates no one will realize there is a structure in the ground.  Grading changes and removal of trees eliminates potential hazard as to concern, so this threat is eliminated.  The regrading and replanting of two blue spruce will enhance this intersection.  Mr. Karkowsky:  how much soil will be on this area?  Mr. Walker indicated 13.7” which is enough for grass.

The plan currently shows 2 6’ height Blue Spruce, but the plan will be marked up to reflect that the applicant has agreed to two 12’ high Blue Spruce.  No formal revision needed. 

Plan is noted as Option C revised 1/31 revised.  Mr. Roughgarden?  Are trees guaranteed?  Mr. Omland:  They are guaranteed as part of the subdivision.  Once they are installed, there is a two year period after project is approved and accepted.  It is on private property, but homeowner has to maintain and nurture these trees.  Applicant is planting trees along entire stretch.  While these are watering and maintaining these, he will also be doing the private ones.  .

Deb Nielson:  report indicates the other two trees damaged.  Mr. Roughgarden:  there was one proposal that this tree be maintained, indicating that there is nothing being done to the other trees and he is agreeable to this.

Gail Roughgarden:  in speaking with Mr. Nardone, wanted to know if the escrow can be charged for the $300 landscaping report she obtained.   Mrs. White:  cannot charge escrow but since it was something to determine damage during construction process would discuss and bill against the applicant’s engineering inspection account.

Mr. Omland will update the file with his memo of his last meeting.  These two reports should be attached to file and copied to Planning Board meeting so that engineering and project is consistently followed.

David Virkler:  indicated it was a long arduous process.  Thank all for all going the extra mile and appreciate it.  Aware the Township is responsive and there is appreciation on the part of the neighbors, and appreciate the willingness of the developer to come around.

As to Manhole cover arrangement:  The 13” soil covers it?  Do they have to be dug up and serviced? Mr. Omland:  the manhole cover is exposed in a soil area, and there are many of them in the township.  The actual cover will be at grade and hard surface, you cannot bury them.

Mr. Virkler:  Right now nothing is going on at his site.  Does this mean that this project is going on forever?  Concurrent with that, in the middle of road near manhole the cover is not good.  There is not a lot of stone, it is muddy and dirty, and can this be rectified.  He would appreciate this.

Mr. Omland:  applicant has been barred from proceeding until this issue was addressed.  He asked that developer indicate what he is doing on this site now, and what is schedule on continuing and/or cleaning up areas.

Mr. Virkler: What about the problem right in the middle of the road.  Mr. Omland:  the township engineer can require this corrected as part of his requirement. 

Mr. Sullivan:  with respect to when work will start, applicant can respond that the project will begin after he resolves general contractor situation. 

Mr. Virkler:  Issue is that the drain on the outlet of the brook side is higher than the inlet on the side of 12 Rathburn Road.  It is a critical situation, and if it doesn’t drain, creates problem and the sump pump doesn’t work.   This ditch should be cleared out and lowered.

Mr. Omland:  recommended that he email Mr. Barile that there is an issue here and Mr. Omland will call him on this also.    

There are other things that were agreed to:  Mr. Virkler wanted reworking of the drainage and these are obligations that the developer agreed to. Mr. Omland clarified that he will make sure that both his January 16th memo and future memo of Mr. Omland of meeting of January 29th be adhered to so Engineering has clear direction.

Mr. Roughgarden:  thanks the board.

PMSP/F07-12 K & S at MONTVILLE – 49 Old Lane – B: 39.07, L: 2 – 6 Single Family Lots - Notice Acceptable & Carried from 1-10-08 - Roll call:  Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson,  John Visco,  Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Art Daughtry,  Larry Hines, Russ Lipari (Tony Speciale & Vic Caning)                          ACT BY: 1/10/08

Present: 

Michael Sullivan, Esq.

Marc Walker, PE

Jerry Nardone, Developer

Mr. Sullivan reviewed drainage plans and reviewed prior agreements and testimony offered.  Feb. 1, 008 drainage basin plans and annual maintenance estimate dated 2/08.

Mr. Sullivan summarized one variance is connected with this application, as well as waivers for slope relief.  Mr. Sullivan noted that the sewer service area needs to be extended, and this is being considered at next Township Committee meeting.  Applicant received an LOI.  There are no wetlands.  Property is located in Highlands Planning area.  Across from this site is the Highlands Preservation area.   Property is located in the R27A zone, but due to location in CWR, lot size was increased to 1 acre zoning.  Property is almost 8 acres in size, and applicant is proposing 6 lots.  Applicant is proposing one cul de sac with 6 lots.  Roadway was agreed to be 24’ width.  

He indicated the applicant has an endorsement from Board of Health, and notes Vincent Uhl endorses for water quality and expanding sewer and water. 

Mr. Walker discussed stormwater system proposed reviewing alternatives, variances requested, and noted that the applicant did agreed to have it maintained by a homeowner’s association.  Other two basins explained would be turned over to Township if they want one of these plans. 

Mr. Omland:  Mr. Walker gave a good summary of the drainage.  Applicant proposes an underground system, and Mr. Barile indicated he didn’t want it as a maintenance concern.  This is better in aesthetics, and if Board is satisfied that the homeowner’s association will review this.  Wouldn’t agree to design as is, but more changes need to be made on drawings if Planning Board goes with this design. 

Discussion ensued on funding.  Mr. Omland indicated he believes initial funding might be done by the developer to a certain degree.  This is not a DCA association and doesn’t have that degree of funding, but if you want a self sinking fund, you can do that.  If it goes to the township in any of these examples, there is a deposit to defray maintenance costs to defray.  Either way the applicant is required to deposit monies.  The other two are standard above ground.  Yes there are walls and these can be done in an aesthetic way on these systems.  One has plantings and one is to remain as a sand bottom basis so wouldn’t opt for the middle one with the surface infiltration.

 The other basin has a natural bottom and planting:  if wall and fence offends you as well as guiderail, you shouldn’t opt for this one.  One stays with homeowners association is out of sight and out of mind, and feels Mr. Carroll can legal issues to protect and respond to concerns raised.  Concern is the future at Township Committee level.  One issue is road is public, but drainage goes into a road that is a homeowner’s association, so for example, if car leaks oil and goes into curb and goes down into this basin, who is obligated?  There is a tri-party agreement in these areas, and it is more of a quirk.   Feels strong legal language can be developed to protect town in future.

Mr. Karkowsky:  what is the enforcement of the maintenance of this?  How do you ensure they keep the schedule?  Mr. Omland:  state law requires an operation maintenance manual.  It becomes part of the approval.  Township Engineer reviews this.

Would hope there is a maintenance inspection schedule at Mr. Barile’s level.  Part of the fund would be to cover inspection reports, inspections, cleaning, and replacement so that this fund is established to solely defray expenses.

Mr. Lewis:  he likes concept of subsurface structure.  Why not put it in the ROW?  Mr. Walker:  It is in a separate lot.  The storm filter will be under the ground.    Mr. Maggio:  what is objection of Township PE?  Mr. Omland:  this is only device that DEP approved, and this structure has filters in it.  They are $200 each and you have to physically remove them.  Mr. Barile didn’t want this obligation to fund it, have someone to go in, and underground to repair, replacing is a large project.  Mr. Karkowsky:  this benefits both the township and developer and prefers this as long as the maintenance is left with homeowners.  Only caution, per Mr. Omland, is that there is compliance.

You don’t know if it is working, and if it isn’t working, we won’t know.  Because you don’t see it, you just don’t know.  Mr. Karkowsky:  obligation is to have something better to allow inspection.  Mr.  Omland:  He indicated he would want larger manhole structures that can be entered into.  13’ is not a good thing. 

Mr. Lewis:  what is size of lot?   Mr.  Walker:  closer to 10,000 sq. ft.  If we opted to go this way, this basin fits well on 10,000 sq. ft. which is the minimum of zone.  The thing fits well on 10,000 sq. ft.  Mr. Omland:  supports a separate lot.  Mr. Maggio:  are there others in town?  Mr. Omland:  we have other underground detention for roads.  The State suggested this in many cases.

Planning Board members discussed which one would be best:  found subsurface Infiltration Basin (underground) best noting they understand Mr. Barile’s concerns, and Mr. Omland noted that with the Bio Retention Basin if not offended by wall, and guide rail, this is ok also, and understands this.  If members are concerned, then go with underground.  Mr. Karkowsky:  go with underground, but the applicant will have to work further with Mr. Omland on engineering technical issues.

Mr. Walker:  anything that gets into the system from roadways will be located at the end of the pipe and they will have a 4” opening to get in there which will allows a camera down the pipe better which is better than having someone go down there.  If there is a problem, they excavate.  Mr. Walker is comfortable with this design.  Mr. Omland:  have other comments that must be addressed and he will work with Mr. Walker to finalize them.    

Ms. Nielson:  would want to make sure that every deed is very clear as to what these lots will be required to comply with.  From visual, finds it acceptable.  Mr. Lipari:  agreed with underground and the comments offered.

Mr. Lewis:  prefer underground basin but same concerns about depressed basin, who maintains grass on this new lot?  This must be clear that the homeowner’s association must be responsible for this.  Mr. Walker:  will be nice houses and thinks the person that lives near this lot will end up mowing the front lawn area.   Deb Nielson:  work something out, but ultimately make sure it will be responsibility of homeowner’s association.  Mr. Sullivan:  this separate lot will be responsibility of homeowner’s association, and there will be by-laws with a budget and it will be very clear that this will fall on owner. 

Mr. Maggio:  two questions – what is history of township in this regard?  Mr. Lewis:  this is not a Kelly’s Bill issue.  If this is only thing doing and is well funded, and affirm that the applicant will comply leave with Section of code 16.28 which is escrow deposit on funding the maintenance, and if this basin were to come over to township , we would bond.  Since we are not taking over, we might want to see this funded up front.

 There is no law on this aspect.  It is a question for policy.  Mr. Sullivan indicates:  code says ‘if the town’ and this is not situation.  Mr. Sullivan indicated that there is language in there which indicates that the homeowner’s is not carried over and township takes this over and bills the lots involved.  Mr. Omland:  believe under DCA rules, you have to fund and/or identify what those annual dues are, and you must put in budget, and you must be sure they are done in accordance with state regulations and guidance of the ordinance.  If you wish to waive pre-funding, it is a board decision, but this should be done in accordance with township and state.  Mr. Sullivan:  there is prefunding as part of budget.  It was indicated that the Board attorney and Township attorney would have to review and approve the homeowner’s association rules and regulations. This can be worked out.

Mr. Maggio:  roads running next to this drain, what about salting, etc. that township provides.  Is township responsible?  Mr. Omland:  if the basin isn’t maintained, it will fail but he is comfortable with design.  Mr. Maggio agreed with underground.

Mr. Hines:  Underground.  Mr. Visco:  underground, asking Mr. Omland to confirm that there is no impact to aquifer/CWR district requirements.  Mr. Omland:  Understands the Planning Board is alert to aquifer.  When CWR came up and rules came up, there was a requirement for increased protection.  He would be more concerned if it were a commercial development, but feels with single family very little chance of contaminants going into aquifer.  Not getting full 90% compliance, but is close to it. 

This is in excess of RSIS requirements, but needs a waiver for less in percentage as required under our local code.  Mr. Speciale:  thinks subsurface is better.   Doesn’t feel this is a lot in cost for this type of housing.  Mr. Canning:  ok with underground.  Mr. Karkowsky:  Applicant indicated that engineers, township attorney and board attorney are to meet and address all board’s concerns. 

Mr. Sullivan indicated the board will comply with all agency findings.  He addressed all agency comments as well as Board of Health and has complied with Mr. Uhl’s report. 

Variances are minimal:  slope waivers. The DA would be required, which document will address COAH requirements.  Mr. Sullivan:  No ordinance in affect at this time on COAH, and doesn’t want to get a condition that is unknown.  Mr. Carroll:  to the extent that it is permissible to do so, the governing body will insist whatever COAH requires, but if municipality and/or township adopt something that is retroactive, applicant would have to agree.

Mr. Sullivan:  wants additional wording that ensures some type of mechanism add that in event, if there is a dispute, there is some type of a mechanism that allows the applicant to resolve.  Mr. Carroll indicated they will put this in document.

Lighting is shown, and must reflect the new JCP&L light pole discussed this evening.

Sidewalks:  Ms. Nielson indicated this plan reflects a sidewalk on one side of place, do you want a sidewalk?  Noted concerns about what is happening in township with sidewalks, them aging, cracking and the homeowner’s responsibility to repair this. 

Mr. Walker:  no problem with removal of sidewalk in the cul de sac, and this should be considered to be waived as diminimous exception. It should be along main roadway though and connect though to existing sidewalk.  Mr. Lewis:  if it is in RSIS requirement, he doesn’t agree with deleting it without a good reason. 

Ms. Nielson:  we haven’t required them in small subdivisions. Mr. Walker:  trees will be planted.  Mr. Lipari:  concerned about roots destroying sidewalks.  Mr. Omland:  to address this point, road narrowed in this subdivision which gives you 6’ away from sidewalk so you have more land, and if no conflict behind sidewalk to accommodate trees.  Mr. Speciale:  waive sidewalks.  Mr. Hines and Mr. Visco, Mr. Lipari agreed to waive internal sidewalk.  Mr. Lewis:  why are we waiving state requirements?  Personally wouldn’t be dismissive of a state reg. which is mandated. 

Mr. Burgis:  town has to consider if a sidewalk detracts from rural character.  In a small cul de sac, there is a policy to discourage this.  What imagery do you want?  Mr. Omland:  sidewalks are mostly for school children and there is a benefit from impervious since it is in aquifer which is justified, and mostly it is theme of town?  Have to go for waivers before DCA and they used these to formulate.  Haven’t seen it on sidewalks, but have seen on others.  Mr. Lewis:  curbs and dense trees is not a rural subdivision.   Consensus of Board:  waive sidewalk.

Mr. Lewis:   there is a proposed disposable bed in easement, one inside JCP&L?  They will need consent to leave it here from JCP&L for septic, unless there is deed information that says so.  Mr. Sullivan:  it appears governing body will approve extension of sewer, but if it doesn’t happen, will respond to the other issues of concern with on site sewer.

Mr. Maggio:  the cost for maintenance discussed.  Mr. Omland indicated the attorneys would resolve this and question is if you want to have the homeowners fund under homeowner’s association, and whether or not this fund is partially or fully funded upfront by developer?  Is there a normal situation for a small subdivision like this?  If the developer was made to do it, he would tack on the extra price to the homeowner on purchase.  Question is out there.   Mr. Sullivan:  will resolve with the Township Attorney.

Motion made by Russ Lipari to grant preliminary/final subdivision, requested variance, waivers and exceptions as testified to, compliance with revisions to plan as required by professional reports, compliance with all agency findings, a Developer’s Agreement, including provisions for COAH and for Homeowner’s Association relative to underground detention and lot maintenance including deed notification to all potential property owners, revisions subject to review by the planner and the engineer, waiving of sidewalk, lighting is subject to final review in accordance with township policy by Township Engineer and compliance with the normal applicable conditions of subdivision approvals.

Second:  Deb Nielson

Roll call: Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale (alt#1) and Vic Canning (alt#2).

PSPP/FC07-09 – BOILING SPRINGS SAVINGS BANK – Site Plan & variance application – 446 & 448 Rt. 202, Lots 78.01 & 78.02, B: 39.11 – Notice Acceptable & carried from 1/10/08; Eligible:  Roll call:  Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Russ Lipari, Marie Kull, Art Maggio, John Visco, Gary Lewis (Mr. Speciale and Mr. Canning )             ACT BY:  3/13/08 - Application  was rescheduled and carried w/notice to: 3/13/08

NEW BUSINESS

None

CONCEPTS

None

Mr. Lewis asked to make a public comment on a statement that he made that may have offended Mr. Nichols I(B&R) in Towaco, extending a public apology over the statement he made on the deli noting he was teasing, that he still goes there, and he is sorry if this was taken wrong ways. 

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

Secretary

Absent – with explanation

Absent – with explanation

certified to 1-10-08 Hearing

 

 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack