|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10,
2008
ROLL CALL
Mr. Maggio - present Mr. Karkowsky - present
Ms. Kull - present Mr. Daughtry - present
Ms. Nielson - present Mr. Visco - present
Mr. Lipari - present Mr. Lewis - present
Mr. Hines - present Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present
Mr. Canning (alt#2) - present
Also Present:
Michael Carroll, Esq.
Stan Omland, PE
Joe Burgis, AICP
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated
REORGANIZATION:
Appointment of Temporary Chairman – Russ
Lipari
Motion by: Ladis Karkowsky
Seconded by: Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
Appointment of Chairman - Ladis
Karkowsky
Motion by: Russ Lipari
Seconded by: Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
Appointment of Vice Chairman - Russ
Lipari
Motion by: Larry Hines
Seconded by: Marie Kull
Roll call: Unanimous
Appointment of Secretary – Linda
White
Motion by: Russ Lipari
Seconded by: Tony Speciale
Roll call: Unanimous
Adoption of Rules &
Regulations/By-Laws –
Motion made by: Larry
Hines
Seconded: Russ
Lipari
Roll call: Unanimous
Adoption of Annual Report - Carried
to 1/24/08
Designation
of Meeting Nights 7:30PM & Meeting Dates Designation of Official Newspaper
for Legal
The Daily Record & The Citizen (for publication
purposes)
Motion by: Russ
Lipari
Seconded by: Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
Appointment: Board Attorney/Execution of Professional
Services Agreement – Michael Carroll, Esq. Motion made by: Russ
Lipari, seconded by: Marie Kull Roll call:
unanimous
Appointment of Board Planner & Execution of Professional
Services Agreement – Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP Motion made by: Deb Nielson, seconded by Larry Hines Roll
call: unanimous
Appointment of Board Engineer & Execution of Professional
Services Agreement – Stan Omland, PE – Omland Engineering – Motion made
by: Russ Lipari, seconded by Marie Kull
Roll call: unanimous
The chairman welcomed the new board members Art Maggio and
Vic Canning.
Following are
appointments made by the Chairman for 2008:
Appointment of Committees/Liaisons by Chairman
a)
Board of Adjustment – Larry Hines
b)
Board of Health – Victor Canning
c)
Environmental Commission – Marie Kull
d)
Water & Sewer – Arthur Maggio
e)
Historic Preservation Commission – Art Daughtry
f) DRC – John Visco
g) Site Plan/Subdivision Committee – Russ Lipari Chair,
Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry, Deborah Nielson, & John Visco (alt)
h)
Regional Drainage Study Committee – Russ Lipari, Ladis Karkowsky
i) Traffic & Traffic Subcommittee –
Russ Lipari
j) Economic Development Committee –
Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale
k) Open Space Committee – Ladis
Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson
l) Master Plan/COAH 3rd Round – Ladis Karkowsky,
Art Daughtry, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis
m) Cross Acceptance Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ
Lipari
n) Highlands Legislation Review Committee – Gary Lewis
Secretary announced the following carried hearings to dates
as indicated. Motion made by: Gary Lewis, seconded Russ Lipari to carry
with notice preserved. Unanimous
PMN/C07-07 - NARDONE, JERALD – 4 Kokora Ave. – B: 51,
L: 50 – minor Subdivision w/variances - Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 2/28/08
Carried to 2-28-08 w/notice
PMSP/F07-10 - K &
K DEVELOPERS, Inc., Major Subdivision – 10 Woodmont Road, Block: 159, L: 6
– 10.2 acre parcel into 11 lots (Ten SF) – R27A Zone – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 3/14/08
Carried to 2-28-08 w/notice
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
No public comments offered.
Mr. Karkowsky indicated that with respect to applicants
approaching their paperwork, he wants to stress that they must have these
documents in on time, and if these documents are not on time, these
applications will not be heard by the board on the night scheduled. Deb Nielson: thought it might be a good idea to consider a notice written up
to this extent and attach it to the application. We have those that are constant violators, and she would want
them to be aware before the applicants are affected, noting that it is a
problem usually with that applicant’s professionals. The applicant should be made aware. If this policy is written with the application, there should be no
excuses, noting concern especially when it’s a resident. Ladis Karkowsky: noted it will be unfortunate, but this will be better business for
the Planning Board. Agrees this notice
should be written out and attached with the application.
Gary Lewis: indicated his concern piggybacks this issue, and
without using any specifics as an example, notes that his expectation is that
when a set of revised plans is submitted to the board’s engineering firm, that
prior to this revised plan making it ways back to board, that before that
scheduling occurs, we stress that the applicant’s professionals meet with the
board’s professionals to resolve issues that are technical in nature, and that
the Board professionals correspond to the board in a short memo that indicates the
Township’s concerns have been addressed which will allow us as a board to focus
on issues of planning. Ladis
Karkowsky: agreed.
Mr. Omland: will
make sure that when an application is scheduled to be heard, and the
engineering comments are purely engineering, he will resolve these, will
indicate same, and will only list concerns and issues on his report needing
board resolution. Ladis Karkowsky noted
that when the applicants and engineer talk back and forth at the board meeting,
this dialogue takes a lot of time, noting that where there are issues needing
board resolution, then these issues will be undertaken and decided by the
Planning Board.
Gary Lewis: noted
the notice sent out about a Highland’s meeting in Jefferson Township, asking if
there was any interest of any other member to attend this meeting? Mr. Omland noted Jefferson is totally in the
preservation area, and although the discussion at that town may be interested,
it wouldn’t relate to Montville. Mr.
Omland noted that we can request the Highlands to come to this town and focus
on our community. At this time, Mr.
Omland distributed the updated Highlands map.
Mr. Daughtry on review found there are a lot more areas
reflected from past mapping, but still lacks what actually exists in town.
PLANNING BUSINESS
Update on COAH
Regulations
Mr. Carroll summarized that COAH was given a 6 month period for
review of the rules to be adopted.
There won’t be anything done for six months. Mr. Burgis started he started his review of all of the rules and
regulations to get a sense of what it means to Montville. There are a number of things that will
occur, and he will submit a report at the beginning of next week. As we discussed in the past, we had to
provide and create a plan that mandated development of affordable housing
reviewing some of the requirements. He
noted we also had to provide a plan on employment growth: he compared the changes in these
requirements. The plan also authored
the manner in which we determined the number of jobs created.
Mr. Burgis
elaborated. He discussed the payment in
lieu pricing, bonuses discussed, noting plan does not provide for a bonus for
developers to offset to provide affordable housing indicating they are now
entitled to one additional market rate unit on site i.e. if a developer is
required to provide 20 for 100; he gets an additional 20 units. Courts looked at age restricted cap, and
could set aside 50% as age restricted, it is now 25% cap.
Our previous need was 298 required including prior
round. All of these numbers throughout
the state increased. We have 14 unit
rehab share; our prior went from 161 to 261 units and growth share went from
137 to 336. There are ways to deal with
this. Fortunately we have a 494 unit
credit, and we can apply 261 to prior round, leaving 233 credits which can be
applied for growth share, hasn’t analyze rental component, but feels we should
be in a fairly good position.
Discussion ensured on affordable housing numbers as to how bad these
numbers are. Mr. Lewis: these rules are immediately going to be
challenged to the highest court level, so should Montville be doing too much
more until the dust settles. COAH
identified five hearings and they will have until June 2nd, but he would
suggest at a minimum that we prepare a letter to COAH where we disagree with
regulations and put this on record. Mr.
Carroll: agreed that this ruling will be challenged, and feels the understated
numbers is less and that he thinks these numbers don’t go far enough. COAH was looking at a million units in NJ,
yet we were shut off the Highlands, except for Mt. Laurel housing which is the only
thing you can build in the highlands, but feels that the state’s position is
that this plan hasn’t gone far enough.
He feels that not only the builder’s association will file, but feels other
entitles will also file lawsuits, which most likely will be consolidated into
one court, and would go straight to the appellant division. It is going to be a colossal mess, and we
are looking at no physical way to do what COAH is asking.
Mr. Daughtry: voiced
concerns about COAH and the Highlands, and doesn’t want to see any monies spent
on this noting we are sitting here with a map which still doesn’t show the real
build out in Montville Township, and if you put these two together, they are
opposing each other: state is arguing
state. Stream rules also a change which
shuts down more developable land. Looking at the Highlands and the remaining properties in Pine
Brook area, even suspect properties, even these are taken right off the
table. Perhaps one letter from a
professional but let the system play out, asking if sell our surplus? Mr. Burgis:
discussed a case similar to this question noting COAH indicated this
cannot be done, but would be open to an argument on this issue.
We may want to include this in that letter where there are
surplus even after your address your obligations, why can’t they be accounted
for. Mr. Daughtry felt the approach is
if we embrace the Highlands and has a vision that we are mature and don’t want
to build anymore, then if we got this by pricing stated of $161,000 and just
consider selling off 200 units, embracing the Highlands, and that takes development
off table, with the monies which is a windfall. Deb Nielson: we have no
other property to b build out. Mr.
Carroll: Highlands is statute and Mt.
Laurel is a constitutional statute, so one can look and say ‘trump’
environment. Mr. Omland indicated the Highland’s
plan should be locked in and they can transfer rights, can designate affordable
housing, so redevelopment would make a difference.
Ms. Nielson indicated in two weeks we are having a public
hearing on Towaco Center, reminding the board we had a hearing on Dec. 12th
to draft report. Some of these changes
were made, and we met with Mr. Burgis to discuss other changes along with on
going changes. These will be
readdressed in the draft to make sure that there is certain procedural
language. Some of these highlighted,
noting that we will also have notes in the Towaco report that will indicate we
will respond to the COAH rules complying with whatever regulations are in
place, and allowing credit that will be available. We will put on our website the final draft which will be labeled
draft for general public.
Scheduling of
Subcommittee Meeting – Ms. White indicated she needed a subcommittee
meeting. After discussion, subcommittee
members indicated that they would be able to attend a January 15th
8:30AM meeting.
Update re:
PMSP/F03-02 Laurel Green - 10 Rathburn Rd. - B: 39, L: 63 - 3 lot
subdivision
Mrs. White summarized
that due to concerns of residents over a storm water/DEP drainage design, she
has asked the applicant to appear before the Planning Board on February 14th
to discuss this condition of approval.
She asked the attorney to send general notices to the residents to let
them know this issue will be discussed this evening by the Board.
Ms. Nielson: elaborated stating that the purpose of the
meeting is to review and have residents understand how this drainage structure
issue occurred, and to bring everybody on board up to date, urging all
engineers to get together between now and Feb. 14th and explore the
options to address this issue and come up with some time of plan to resolve
this. She explained there is a storm
water filter basin which is large in size approved by DEP as part of the water
quality requirement, and put in the ground, and was meant to be underground but
is exposed. It was not reflected on the
plans at the time of the original subdivision approval, it is unsightly and we
have been asked us to revisit this issue.
This will be scheduled on Feb. 14th.
Referral Reports from Board on:
Ordinance No. 2008-02 amending Chapter 16.44, general provisions of the land use code of
the Township of Montville to enable accessory retail uses in industrial zones. Gary Lewis moved that Ordinance 2008-02 is
in our opinion consistent with Master Plan and recommends adoption Seconded by: Russ Lipari Roll
call: unanimous
Ordinance No. 2003-03
amending the zoning map of the Township of Montville to include Block 32, Lot
17 in CWR critical water district.
Mrs. White indicated
that she received an email from the township engineer today and that there
appears to be no reason for an ordinance amendment. It is more related to tax map changes which he would coordinate. No report needed. Ordinance is withdrawn.
WAIVERS
None
RESOLUTIONS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
PMSP/F02-28 FOREST
RIDGE – B: 109, L: 30 – Alpine Rd. – Request for extension of approvals to
12/8/08
Motion by: Russ Lipari
Seconded by: Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
MINUTES
Minutes of 12/12/07 – Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Deb
Nielson, Gary Lewis, John Rosellini, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Anthony
Speciale, Leigh Witty
Motion by: Russ Lipari
Seconded by: Gary Lewis
Roll call: Ladis Karkowksy, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Russ
Lipari, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale
INVOICES
Omland Engineering – O/E for:
$120, Trust for: $480, $120, $30, $90, $60, $210
Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust
for: $510, $60
Burgis Associates – Trust
for: $90, $390, $150, $60
Bricker & Assoc. – Trust
for: $840, $900
Motion by: Marie Kull
Seconded by: Gary Lewis
Roll call: Unanimous
LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
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 12/12/07 ACT BY: 1/15/08
Steven Schepis, Esq.
for applicant.
Mrs. White indicated
that the applicant met today with the Design Review Commission who found the
new architectural design acceptable.
Board professionals
sworn
Frank Orofino sworn
Mr. Orofino: resident of Montville and explained Boiling
Springs Saving Bank. Discussed shared
parking and customers accessing the site, explaining the customer is more interested
in drive-up facilities. The ordinance
requires certain parking spaces, and from what was said, there would be more
than enough spaces based on their bank operation.
Hours of
operation: 9-4 and 9-1 on
Saturday. Russ Lipari: Reading some of the info, the lobby would be
open from 4-6 with one night open evening hours, any other nights? Mr. Orofino: Just one night – the one night only.
Mr. Carroll: discussed the filing noting there are two
lots involved. He will look at this as
a preliminary and final for the bank lot and a amended preliminary and final
for the Red Barn lot.
Mr. Lipari: asked about the current building on property,
requesting square footage. Mr. Schepis
referred to the colored photograph of existing site.
Gerard Hug, 13
Cheryl, one of owners of Red Barn. Mr.
Daughtry raised issues about heights of building. Mr. Hug noted that the Red Barn roof is higher and even though
bank is higher, the Red Barn is higher since it slopes up. Eli Bagel’s is one story with a roof. Bank roof is higher than Red Barn. Plan shows 26’ to the peak on bank
building.
Jeffrey Morris,
Licensed PE – sworn – Previously before board – Boswell Engineering
A1 – colored site plan marked in – a new landscaping plan displayed reflects
proposed landscaping plan. Ingress/egress
location discussed, which provides for parking on Main Road side and an inside
parking area on the side. The drive-thru
is on opposite side. Also show
existing landscaping around this site which is mostly on Red Barn property with
several trees, shrubs and ornamental around and among arborvitae, they will add
additional shrubs.
Existing conditions
discussed. Page 2 of site plan reflects
the topo. On the property today is an n
existing dwelling and garage on rear dwelling.
Access is off Main St and goes around existing dwelling. Garage is about 2’ away from Red Barn
property line. The use on property is
residential. Existing property as it
relates to entrance and Red Barn facility is interesting in that this property
sits down and is relatively flat as it leaves Main Street and only goes one to
two feet in same distance. Rear of this
site has a change in elevation of approximately 16’ from curb of Red Barn to
back of property line. Existing
coverage on site between house and gage is 2376 sq. ft. What is proposed
discussed.
A2 marked into exhibit – colored boards of property
location. A2 consists of four photographs of site as it exists today and
marked as A1 thru A4. Upper left photo
depicted westerly property line from exit driveway showing low junipers on westerly
side on Red Barn site and is not in common with this property. Looking at No. 2, exit from Red Barn and on
right side is property line, which depicts junipers and as you get to rear, you
see existing juniper and arborvitae. There
is a 6’ chain link fence. Photo 3 shows
junipers and arborvitaes along left side of the parking lot and junipers in
front with Red Barn in the rear. Photo
four is across the front of the Red Barn property taken from the westerly side reflecting
the bushes and landscaping.
Colorized site plan
shows improvements: ingress and egress
is thru internal parking lot. Is there
a lost of parking space on Red Barn: there is a lost of four spaces. These four spaces are replaced in front of
bagel shop and this area has about 80-90’.
Property line juts down by 35’.
It is not a perfect rectangle.
Circulation driveways: you would
proceed straight.
Sign location
discussed. Set back about 2’ from ROW
line and takes up island. It is 10’
X9’ sign. There were modifications made to it. New site is 6’ off ROW and 13’ from existing
side and is about 4’ further back. As
part of this site development, there is more impervious coverage. Due to DEP regulations, provided for underground
chambers located around south side of the building. Water recharge system discussed.
Discussed water quality and detention, and CWR requirements require
recharge.
Russ Lipari: going back to drainage and storm water
management and DEP, just to clarify since we have had some situations with another
application, will you have to go back to the DEP to get certain approvals and
can they make demands beyond what is implemented here? DEP regulations are fluid but this plan does
not require any land use permit from state.
They are under our code, which allows minimum major projects, explaining
same, noting that this plan has to conform to Morris County and Municipal
requirements. Mr. Omland: they are not subject to DEP. This is outside flood plain, and no
wetlands, and their drainage design lies with this board.
Deb Nielson: this site
is located in the fringe of the restricted aquifer zone. Mr. Omland.
Because they are in restricted, they are subjects to enhanced area for
upgrades. Deb Nielson: Can you justify reducing impervious coverage
down? Mr. Morris: On a bank site, you
want ample aisles. For safety
standpoint, you want more parking spaces.
Have done what could be done. In
addition, application requires variance for Red Barn site for 56% where 55%
permitted as to impervious coverage, which comes in where we are adding these
parking spaces.
Mr. Morris: in looking at analysis, are you looking at
one lot and calculation for entire lot development: the total impervious coverage would be 59.9%. Will there be negative impact on adjoining
areas: none will be created per Mr. Morris.
The ordinance requires 50’ rear yard, proposing 23.37’. He discussed trying to push bank back. It is a small building, and trying to
maintain front as it is. Rear property
line extends and juts into the jag area and comes along where new parking
spaces required and comes down. Unusual
rear property line creates need for variance.
Requires a deviation
from design standards for driveways/property line where 1’ exists.
Gary Lewis: as a result of cross easements, will there be
a shared parking agreement, as part of this application, should this be
represented. Mr. Schepis: There is a written agreement, there is a
proposed easement and should board act favorably, it will be a permanent
easement and recorded.
Lighting and
circulation concern and pedestrian circulation discussed with concerns noted
about those pedestrians having to cross a driving aisle to bank walkway, and
coming out of driveway. Is there
adequate lighting if it isn’t a clear walkway?
Mr. Morris indicated there is a delineated walkway from accessible
space, and this goes across the entire aisle.
Concern: how do you slow the vehicles down? Can I see at these foot-candles? Do I need to slow car down from drive-thru? Mr. Morris noted due to the geometry, you
are forced to slow down, and he believes enough light candles exist. Concern: Not
happy about a left from access driveway and have a conflict with one way
driving aisle.
Russ Lipari: indicated we are now working on the master
plan study which presently represents 75% coverage, and we must consider what
we are doing since this is located within the restricted zone which is part of
Towaco and this amount of coverage becomes an issue. We must consider consequence of facing this. This was raised as a point for the applicant
to consider. The coverage is high on
this site and is beyond this number with 81%.
Applicant must consider this.
Mr. Schepis: he indicated that
they look at this calculation and developed the number at 59 percent as total
percentages in coverage. Although
higher than normally considered, you have to look at this as a total number for
two sites.
Art Daughtry: as to the agreements and easements between
property owners, did you look at real parking requirements for Red Barn? Is there is a surplus of parking on their
property? And can you help on this
property? Mr. Burgis indicates you can
refer to the report and may be a surplus.
What about anticipated densities.
Deb Nielson: proposal in Towaco
is 75% and there is public opposition for impervious coverage, so this board is
sensitive to this and is trying to balance this. She feels reluctant o look at it at higher than what Towaco
proposes. Building coverage is 276 sq.
ft. over code and maintains existing square footage. Could lose 3 spaces in back with spaces in back and would go with
l9 spaces.
Mr. Daughtry: was looking at the front of the building on
Rt. 202, have you considered looking at parallel parking which gives you 3
spaces. 9 spaces in front keep 3 and
lose 6 and although it would add impervious coverage, you would have to add more
landscaping. Mr. Burgis: suggested 18 parking spaces but raised
concern with aisle which leads into a two way lane. Suggest eliminating 16 and 17 and allow a K-Turn and make it half
depth, but this helps with the K turn movement.
Stan Omland: asked about compliance with his report. Mr. Schepis indicated applicant has no problem
with comments in Mr. Omland’s report and will comply. Soil testing is required and if insufficient for drainage design,
what they would recommend as a remedy would be a shallow concrete system. Applicant was advised that they may have to
come back to board to demonstrate change in plans. Applicant will comply with technical compliance. Rendering depicts lighting fixtures and may
require double lights along frontage vs. single. Applicant will comply.
Mr. Karkowsky: wants
to make sure all of the issues are addressed without coming back to Planning
Board.
Deb Nielson: does not recommend parking in the front
yard. Want a nice streetscape within
the town. Don’t want to see
headlights. We can work in some fashion
and parking is only 5’ off property line which is inconsistent with our theme
along this corridor.
As to Required
Reports: is County approval
received. Mr. Schepis: County Planning Board is not in place. Most of the comments were drainage. Gary Lewis:
wants easement information noted on the site plan. It hasn’t been recorded yet, but if the
Board grants an approval, the deal is consummated and this is put on the
recorded documents, and prior to site plan being signed and difference as to
what is recorded and agree that if this is approved, this easement date and
filing information would be captured on the plan also.
Jack Desch – sworn –
Traffic PE expert - credentials accepted
Mr. Desch discussed
circulation on site. Lighting needs to
be increased. Eliminate some of the
parking spaces on the site and provide parallel parking on the front. People are not accustomed to do parallel
parking. Do believe 3 paces would be
best to eliminate. Leaving it grass and
level, and create a parking space if needed.
Had comments with traffic comments and pointed out traffic needs to e
balances, and determined it didn’t affect.
Additional signage recommended so that no one enters the wrong
driveway. At the same time, if you re
travelling on Rt. 202, will be signage.
Does not feel there should be delineating line. Feels there is sufficient parking, there
will be 18 parking spaces on site.
Mr. Daughtry: clear on parking, accept parallel parking
but looking at flow and one of Planning Board concern is on one way around. Circulation discussed. Ms. Nielson: on the south west side, she is troubled by parking circulation
which is up and around Red Barn and around.
This is a small area and adding all traffic and you are coming into
traffic into a 23.5’ strip in front of Red Barn. There are accidents due to this.
Is it possible to have an egress to the west side and eliminate a
portion of the traffic that would come up and around?
Mr. Hug: garage is being removed and all parking will
be recessed, and the width of that driveway will be much wider than it is right
now. Ones being eliminated are on bank
side. Deb Nielson: concerned with back up movement. Concerned about visitors to the bank on a
peak hour, daily hour, and not sure engineer looked at exit ramp in
southwestern corner.
Gary Lewis: some parking lot observations on existing
Red Barn stated; concerns with visitor traffic, walk in traffic and the 8-12 employees. Having difficulties with impervious
coverage, and have you considered having employees park in westerly lot of the
Red Barn lot, which would reduce need for on site spaces around bank. Would there be a traffic downside, coupling
on piggybacking on mayor’s comments, eliminate all spaces along Rt. 202 or land
bank them and make a drive aisle as shown, and replace with landscape, dress up
front of building; wind up with 12 spaces;
might be 9 spaces. Mr. Hug:
indicated that there may be the opportunity to have a new tenant with
Italian restaurants, and delineate additional spaces for the bank use may impact
his site.
Russ Lipari: appreciate what Mr. Hug says, and eliminate
with parking in front and go in this direction, and designate area as
additional parking for future parking so that it wouldn’t jeopardize Red Barn
solution.
Tony Speciale: is you consider 7 parking spaces with 3 in
back and four in right hand corner, and you do the math, how many spots do we
need to comply with making the site work.
Mr. Daughtry: Cross
easement discussed as it relates to Red Barn use, noting the different hours
and uses that would work. Marie Kull: what
is setback of building in front, and have you considered moving building
forward which will give more ability to redesign. Deb Nielson: applicant
received many suggestions this evening, feels the applicant should sketch them
up and come up with a solution.
This application was
carried with notice preserved and time to act to the February 14th
agenda. Motion made by: by:
Larry Hines seconded by Tony Speciale.
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 – yes)
NEW BUSINESS
PMSP/F07-12 K & S
at MONTVILLE – 49 Old Lane – B: 39.07, L: 2 – 6 Single Family Lots - Notice
Acceptable ACT BY:
1/10/08
(Russ Lipari left)
Present: Michael
Sullivan, Esq.
Mr. Sullivan summarized noting there is one variance
connected with this application, as well as waivers for slope relief. Mr. Sullivan noted that the sewer service area
needs to be extended, noting this requires an action from the Township
Committee. He asked that the Planning
Board consider supporting this by notifying the Township Committee that the
sewer service area should be connected.
He indicated that the Water and Sewer report requested extension.
Mark Walker, PE – sworn – previously certified
Exhibit A1 with today’s date displayed indicating a colored rendering
depicting property. Property is wooded,
has an existing house, barn and shed and is used as gentleman’s farm. Applicant completed all testing and found no
contaminations in soil, as well as no chemicals. The area is primarily woods.
Applicant received an LOI. There
are no wetlands. Property is located in
Highlands Planning area. Across from
this site is the Highlands Preservation area. Sewer ends at intersection of Jean Drive and Old Lane. Topo is all
down hill and applicant would like to do sewers as part of this
application. Existing water lines
located in front of property. Topo
slopes to the west east. 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. Density is under requirement.
Applicant is proposing one cul de sac with 6 lots. Roadway is 28’ wide and after talking with
client, would like to reduce from 28’ to 24’.
Under RSIS, road width is only 18’ with no curbing. Nagel application referenced; agreed to 24’
width.
Applicant is proposing conservation easements, and plans
depict a proposed sidewalk to connect to east, and applicant will extend
sidewalk to connect to this point.
Applicant noted he spent some time with engineers for township to
resolve engineering issues.
Discussion ensued on Old Lane. Master Plan calls for 35’ wide, which is a wide roadway. Discussion ensued about allowing 28’. After looking at Old Lane, road width is 35’
and Jean drive is 35’ and decision came down to widen 17 ½’. Extended road improvements off property line
to left adjacent to Stafford place and will extend curb to make smooth curb
transition.
Applicant discussed his septic and sewer plans: applicant prefers sanitary sewer constructed
in roadway and reviewed plans indicated he would extend lines behind 2.05 and
2.06 and run out to Old Lane which is preferred location. The subdivision plan reflects both
designs: septic and/or extension of
sewer lines.
He indicated the applicant has an endorsement from Board of
Health, and notes Vincent Uhl endorses for water quality and expanding sewer
and water. DEP sanitary plan includes
most of Montville, but thru their own planning purposes, they provided sewer
likes but this property is not within our sewer service area. Jean Drive has sewers. Applicant has requested a meeting with Township
Committee to request that this property be included in sewer line
district. Mr. Sullivan indicated the
applicant would like to have this addressed at Township Committee level,
but would like to go back to Committee
with a formal request from Planning
Board to get this area to sewers. He
indicated he would like some input from the Planning Board in the form of
endorsement of extension of sewer since property is located in CWR district
area. Land is at the end of the CWR
area on the outer edge but still within this area.
Gary Lewis: if the Planning
Board would agree with your position to endorse extension of this area, you are
asking for final subdivision approval and final sewer construction has not been
finalized. Mr. Carroll asked if this
filing is a Preliminary/Final, noting that the applicant can bond for
this. Applicant is filing for preliminary/final,
but cannot file his mylar until all conditions have been met. Mr. Omland indicated that showing both is
ok, since they are proving both plans.
Applicant is asking for option, but the review and adequacy of function
is not something he is worried about it.
Mr. Sullivan: It makes perfect
sense for sewers here and wants to go to governing body. Mr. Daughtry: isn’t this at water and sewer level and Township Committee
level? Mr. Sullivan: there are two plans and he would like to
have support from Township, at minimum a recommendation of offering no
objection to Township Committee on the sewer expansion.
Stormwater system proposed discussed: has an alternative of providing a simple
detention basin at the front of the property which is when you first come into
the site. Land has excellent soils,
well drained sands; he opted to spend extra monies to put in subsurface
stormwater detention. He is spending a
substantial amount to put in substandard basin, and agreed to have it
maintained by a homeowner’s association.
Needed to meet RSIS and had to have a mechanical means of treating water
quality. Would have an underground
detention, and it needs to be on its own lot.
Instead of having a ROW, applicant created this odd shape property. Will modify plan to put stormwater quality
structure on its own separate lot. The
lot wouldn’t meet zoning requirements, and it wouldn’t be a building lot, and
doesn’t feel variances are required since it would just house the stormwater
system.
Ladis Karkowsky: how
do we force maintenance of it? Mr.
Sullivan: it will be the homeowner’s
association. Mr. Karkowsky asked how
this would be accomplished. Mr. Sullivan: He indicated that it can be either way: either the township can maintain it, or homeowner’s association can
maintain it. Mr. Omland: there is an annual reporting obligation that provides proof that
indicates this basin is being maintained.
Mr. Daughtry: These
plans depict under ground, infiltration, and 13’ of fill, noting you can have
all agreements you want, noting that this is their problem, but would prefer to
have a more simplified system and let the town take this maintenance issue
over. Stan Omland: there has been a problem in that we have had
to take over private roads, and these types of things do come back to haunt you.
Noting these provisions are contained in deeds.
Ladis Karkowsky: which is more expensive in maintenance? Stan:
liability wise - Unknown. This
structure requires flushing vs. mowing of a detention basin. Costs for this system would be more in
replacing filters, but the cost to construct this type of basin is four times
more than above-ground detention.
Planning Board asked that the applicant provide a chart that
reflects the pro’s and con’s including maintenance and effectiveness of both
types of drainage basins. Mr. Sullivan: when applicant comes back, they can
also supply you visuals at the same time.
Mr. Sullivan was advised that they would like to receive some input from
Mr. Uhl on this issue also. Applicant
also asked to long at the bonding issues.
Mr. Lewis asked that when applicant structures these agreements, they
will be required to have Bylaws and Budget with anticipated expenditures, and
is not a fan of picking up additional obligations that are of a technical
nature. Mr. Sullivan noted that the
Home Owner’s Association would be formed for the stormwater management issue only.
Concerns rose about a single fund use
and the fact that you need to continue to fund monies for this. Mr. Carroll felt it is apolitical issue,
noting the problems we encountered in the past with the Kelly Bill situation
and if enough people are affected by these types of circumstances, legislation
takes the problem to resolve. Mr.
Canning: have seen many applicants
agreed saying they ‘will do it’, but then once said, judges may make other
decisions. Ultimately, it was decided
that the applicant will supply a comparative analysis for the Planning Board to
review..
Ms. Nielson: how are
you dealing with COAH allocation? How will
this applicant be required to fulfill this obligation? Mr. Burgis:
this comment will be in his report.
It is a small 6 lot subdivision, but the affordable issue has to be addressed. Mr. Carroll: there may be a third round
number, and who knows what will happen, but this will be addressed and if
necessary the governing body must adopt a growth share obligation. Deb Nielson: we have to consider developing a policy now. Mr. Carroll: this is something we need to voice. Mr. Burgis: wherever COAH
fits in, growth share will have to respond to it. Mr. Omland: can the establishment
of the growth fair obligation be deferred to building permits or at time of
approvals. Mr. Carroll: no.
Marc Walker: displayed
exhibit A2 depicting lot 2.04, the man made swale which is picture 1 taken from
the east. Picture 2 is from middle
looking to the east. Two photos marked in as A2 Photos consisting
of 2. Applicant requires a variance due
to slopes within 5,000 sq. ft. building envelope. Mr. Burgis noted this area is within the 20-25% grade.
Due to time, this application was carried with notice
preserved and time to act extended by Mr. Sullivan on record to February 14,
2008. Motion made by: Gary Lewis, seconded by: Larry Hines Roll call: Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deb
Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines (Tony Speciale & Vic Caning)
PMN/C07-07 - NARDONE, JERALD – 4 Kokora Ave. – B: 51,
L: 50 – minor Subdivision w/variances - Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 1/10/08
Carry to 2-28-08 w/notice
PMSP/F07-10 - K &
K DEVELOPERS, Inc., Major Subdivision – 10 Woodmont Road, Block: 159, L: 6
– 10.2 acre parcel into 11 lots (Ten SF) – R27A Zone – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 3/14/08
Carry to 2-28-08 w/notice
CONCEPTS
None
Meeting adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by Gary
Lewis, seconded by Marie Kull.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. White
|
