PB Minutes 1-10-08 Print E-mail

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

 

 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack