PB Minutes 1-24-08 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Mr. Maggio - present                                   Mr. Karkowsky - present  

Ms. Kull - present                                                Mr. Daughtry - present

Ms. Nielson - present                                   Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari – present                                   Mr. Lewis – entrance noted

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

                                                                                Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present

Also Present:

Stan Omland, PE

Joe Burgis, Planner

Michael Carroll, Esq.







No public or board comments






Towaco Center Master Plan - Master Plan/Ordinances - Public Hearing

(Note:  Power Point Presentation used to review Master Plan)

Mr. Burgis summarized that he received many questions on this proposal and his presentation this evening will respond the questions asked.  In reviewing these questions sent, he saw that a problem exists with understanding the land use process.  Mr. Burgis explained what a master plan is, what a development ordinance is, and its relationship to site plan review process.  He indicated that once these land use procedures are explained, it will make the master plan document easier to understand.

He outlined how he intended to proceed this evening, noting he would present a brief overview of the Towaco Center area of 68 acres, which was reduced to 39 acres in this document, will review the plan, the goals and objectives and land use recommendations and design standards and some of the techniques regarding as to how it fits in the process. Many didn’t know what a master plan is vs. site plan review. 

A master plan is used for future growth of the community.  It sets forth a policy statement adopted by the Planning Board to give a sense of where it wants to be in the future, 5 to 10 years down the road.  Every 6 years, a master plan has to be reviewed.  It does not set forth planning assessment, which takes place later down the line. 

The statute identifies three components:  goals and objectives, land use plan, and you must also identify intensity of use of what you want to see in these categories.  In addition, you need a Housing Element.  He explained there are various other elements also, but these are optional, and they are not often seen at our level. 

Master Plan is the first step.  The Governing Body is not statutorily entitled to review the Master Plan.  The only way they are involved is thru the funding and thru the implementation of the policy implementation. 

This leads to implementation ordinances:  zoning ordinance explained.  This document is what the Township Committee responds to.  This document indicates uses, zone district, land use plan, area requirements, set forth regulatory controls as to size, setback, and bulk requirements.  Second set is the subdivision/site plan ordinances which relate.  The site plan ordinance sets the design ordinance (street widths, utilities, paving details, lighting, landscaping).  Subdivision ordinance responds to how we subdivide into individual lots.  These two components are the first two steps.  Tonight we are at step 1.

Final step is the nitty gritty details of how a particular application will be developed, explaining Planning Board and Zoning Board powers.  These boards are asked to deal with development issues:  EIS reviews, building on a site, how much land, how much parking, drainage and stormwater management, to name a few. 

Township did receive a planning grant in 2004 from the State.  There are four elements to the state’s grant:  seek and encourage transit oriented development; pedestrian oriented design, strategies for traffic calming, pedestrian/bicycle circulation and context sensitive design.

Study Map displayed indicating the area under review is from Majorca Road to Barney Road and encompasses total of 68 acres.  How did this area get adjusted over time?  Mr. Burgis indicated he reviews these properties and some of the properties were not appropriate to incorporate and thus the study area was cut down to 39 acres.  Most important, the residential areas down Majorca and Park Avenue were eliminated from the final study delineated area since they were overwhelmingly residential.  Many questions related to this area.  To clarify:  these areas were eliminated.

Environmental maps were reviewed, went to DEP and used their maps, used FEMA maps and USGS maps and from this information, and mapped the slopes.  Wetlands were reviewed.  Map displayed explained.  TC1 is 13 acre bound by Rt. 202, Waughaw and Indian Hill Lane. 

Focusing on TC 1 area, in this area, there is 13 acres with about 6.8 acres that are environmental constrained and this area is reflected in dark brown in TC1 zone.  The 6.8acre figure is important since it affects TC1 tract.

In TC2, about ½ of this property is railroad and public property, and of total area there is 1.9 acres of the 26 ½ acres which is environmentally and we have 8.9 acres which has some wetland constraints on it. 

Aquifer reviewed.   Reviewing the TC1, we see 13 acres with 9 acres in prime acreage; 6.8 are wetlands and/or buffers.  In the end the concept plan came up with 2.2 acres of the tract’s entire acreage in the prime aquifer area.  How much is this in total development of community?  In the Township there are 800 acres in prime aquifer area, the end result would be since only 2.2 acres may be developed, two thousand of a percent that would be developed in this area. 

(Note:  Gary Lewis entered)

People believe we are developing the entire aquifer area.  This is not true.  It is 2.2 acres of the 39 ½ acres being intruded upon.  It doesn’t mean that the developer isn’t required to meet zoning developments, prime aquifer and stormwater and wellhead protection ordinances.  Many of these regulations have been adopted following adoption of the last master plan.  Any development would be subject to these regulations as well.

In addition to looking at environmental issues, he looked at surrounding land use in this area.  How much was shown as being able to be developed for single family residential and commercial.  This map illustrates that.  The map displayed reviewed indicated he reviewed the area and the zoning requirements.  Map displayed reflects all existing zoning in the areas:  3 different zones exist in the 39 acres:  B1 along Rt. 202, 13 acre is in R27A zone and an office zone to the east along Rt. 202.  B1 is minimum 20,000 sq. ft. lot; R27 requires varying range depending on prime aquifer or not but could go up to 80,000 sq. ft. and the OB Office zone provides a 60,000 sq. ft. zone with mixed uses permitted (offices for professional, business, business schools, dance and music studios, health and fitness centers, and conference centers.

He looked at the developed character of the business and what your visual impression is as you drive up and down Rt. 202 indicating he saw it as a rural looking town feeling it should be somewhat updated. 

Tricia Quantrone indicated the area does lack distinguishing characteristics and a certain character and if asked, feels it would be hard to pick an architectural feature and character for this area along this strip.

Mr. Burgis indicated there is a lack of any pedestrian connection and there is no defining image. And most important, if you go back to zoning regulations, these codes are hard pressed to encourage enhancement of property, part of which is the minimum lot and bulk requirements.  This freezes Towaco area in place.  It makes it hard to develop any of these at present without needing variance relief.  Second stories are an issue since you can’t get parking, and you can’t get dimensioned differently due to existing bulk requirements.  Due to these difficulties this is why we concluded to give new alternatives to new controls.  Modest increase is needed in this district. 

When this report was written, there were a set of goals and a vision statement.  Streetscape vision:  encourage regulatory controls to develop a two story design and in certain specific instances where slopes drop by about 8’, we would allow 3 stories in rear, but only where that building faces to north.  The Board did not want to see an imposing structure on Rt. 202 nor facing any of the side streets, thus the structuring of the ordinance to allow this only where there is a drop in grade/slope design to enable it.

He indicated that he felt backing out into traffic wasn’t good, wanting to reconfigure and provide parallel in street and some parking in the rear.  He then wanted to talk about a complimentary architectural design and reviewed this area to see the merit in finding other buildings that would provide this, which was a difficult find, but he did suggest an architectural design which is reflected in this master plan report.

He indicated he also had to talk about a modest increase in intensity of use for economic reasons.  How can you tell a property owner to enhance his property and have monies spent without any return to his or her efforts?  No redevelopment would occur if this was the case. 

The goals relative to a streetscape vision were a mixed use with a compact design to facilitate the village affect with design features to create aesthetic enhancement.  This master plan speaks to bicycle path and he referred to the Morris County plan for this aspect, which was another specific requirement of the state who wanted this element in this document. 

He discussed the range of housing choices.  A housing choice doesn’t mean just affordable:  there are multi-family, attached, condos, with residential units over retail becoming more attractive in the market place today. 

What is the land use plan we are trying to incorporate.  Layout reviewed:  a TC1 district in orange and TC2 in yellow to force that the western end of Majorca and Park are not part of this plan and there is no recommendation to change these areas.

In TC1 zone, development would be at grade retail, office above or with residential above.  There would be a cap of 45 units in the entire TC1 and TC2.  You can have 25% or 11 units in the TC2 zone. There could be 34 in TC 1 and 11 units in TC2 zone.  Talked about height limitation of two stories and limited circumstances in certain conditions where slope exists.

There were a number of comments as it relates to coverage factor since Planning Board is considering the increase of impervious to 75%.  Reason this was done since we were concerned about the small lots right along Rt. 202 east of Waughaw Road because the current coverage is 55%, we increased it to 75% and will acknowledge that it suggests that you can get 75% coverage for entire TC1 zone.  In reviewing the plan and recognizing that the environmental constraints are in place, he is confident that this coverage could be adjusted. 

TC2 zone is slightly different:  talked about at grade office with maximum of 11 of the 45 could occur in this zone.  Had prepared an exhibit to show how the TC1 zone may develop.  In any design, you can find any way to develop.  The one sketch will exemplify how this will be developed.  He wanted to give idea of where it would take place. He reflected a plan that showed development on street edge, parking lot and building to the side in rear.  This is located about 314’ from Indian Hill Road. Questions received indicated that there was an impression was that it was going to be built right on this road.  From edge north is 168’ and these are substantial buffers greater than what code requires today.

The larger plan reviewed and this plan reflects 52,000 sq. ft. retail and 45 dwelling units with 251 parking spaces on site, and another 43 parallel spaces along Rt. 202.  There were a number of questions about supplemental parking lot further to the west.  There are some questions about this and we may or may not be able to use this for parking, but the 251 + 43 parallel parking meet requirements of code for retail and dwelling units.

Also concern about various impact issues:  what about traffic, people, ratable value.  Following exhibit reviewed and displayed addresses the concerns raised:

Density and intensity discussed:  1.1 units/acre with 17% FAR (Non-Residential area) applies to the entire 39 acres. 

Ratables discussed.  Ratable Value:  $29.8 Million

Equalized Assessed Value: $15.5 M

Tax Revenue Total:  $480,500

Municipality $96,100School $306,500

Towaco Fire District $10,850

Demographics Impacts:  Population at 85

Public School Children – 5.   Mr. Burgis elaborated that these types of units are 1 and 2 bedroom units and people with children don’t want to live above a retail space.  For every 9-10 units, you get one child. The issue is that the child when 4 years old or more will move out for a single family.

A question raised was whether or not the grant required a builder a certain size unit to build?  Mr. Burgis indicated the grant has nothing to do with bedroom count and/or size of unit.  This is up to a developer, but size would be restricted by the zoning regulations so they won’t get a lot of space.

Retail Expenditures at 1.1 million

Traffic impacts: 74 in AM Peak: 221 In PM Peak and Eliminated backing into Rt. 202

Mr. Burgis discussed traffic patterns and improving area by eliminating backing out onto Rt. 202. 

Kathleen Walker:  what about being behind a school bus in the AM.  On Rt. 202, there was a fire in this location, and how long did it take to get around it?  Traffic accidents create traffic problems since there is no other road to get to.  Mr. Burgis:  one of the benefits of this grant is that it gives municipality points that give them the opportunity to make certain improvements.

Tricia Quantrone, 4 Majorca Road, Toawaco- feels many of the questions have not been answered:  Some questions:

Who are the developers on this plan?  Mr. Burgis:  we have not worked with any developers.  Over the past year, there have been applications to the Zoning Board and this may have been the genesis for revisiting this area.  This is what a community master plan is about.  You establish what the Township wants, and the developer may or may not choose to develop this property.  There is no developer coming forward with all 13 acres.  They are obligated by statute to respond to a master plan.  There is a state statute that mandates that a master plan be adopted that identifies in broad terms how each parcel should develop whether it is residential, commercial or industrial.

Tricia Quantrone:  Why does TC2 have to be in this master plan?  Why not take TC1, develop it and most people agree with this, leave TC2 off to see if this works for them.  There is a variety that is allowed in OB1.  We will allow up to 11 dwellings but a less use than existing and is a fair tradeoff if we are trying to make a more compact retail use.  Do we want to establish this area as neighborhood retail?  Just don’t want it to be large.  Looking at map, it goes on both sides of road.  When you have TC2, there are still people’s homes affected by commercial zoning. 

Charles Perry, Chairman of Environmental Commission.  Read Environmental report into record as it relates to proposed ordinance dated 1/18/08:

Report Read:  The Montville Township Environmental Commission (MTEC) has reviewed the proposed Ordinance To Amend and Revise the Code of the Township of Montville, Chapter 16 Entitled “Land Use.” The MTEC respectfully requests that the following comments and recommendations be entered into the public record and that the proposed ordinance To Amend And Revise The Code Of The Township Of Montville, Chapter 16 Entitled “Land Use” be revised accordingly.

Section 3: Chapter 16.78.030 Development Standards

Subsection A; Area and Bulk Requirements

This subsection calls for an increase in the percentage of impervious coverage within the TC-1 and TC-2 zones.  The MTEC believes that any proposed increase in the percentage of impervious coverage within the TC-1 and TC-2 zones be based upon sound and established scientific and engineering principals, methods and procedures.  To this end, the MTEC strongly recommends that any proposed change in the percentage of impervious coverage be supported by;

the findings of a detailed hydrogeologic study, as specified in Montville Land Use Ordinance 16.04.040 Section G and;

the specifics of Montville Township’s enhanced storm water management requirements pertaining to groundwater recharge and runoff water quality, as described in 16.35.100 of the Township code and;

the requirements of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Storm Water Regulations.

The overall area and bulk requirements detailed in this subsection reflect an intensification of use within the proposed Towaco Center area.  At this time, the effects of such an intensification detailed in this subsection upon the Critical Water Resources District, an acknowledged “Environmentally Sensitive” area, in which the entirety of the Towaco Center lies is unknown.  A detailed Environmental Impact Study entailing the entire Towaco Center area must be done to properly evaluate its potential impact upon the Critical Water Resource District.

Section 3: Chapter 16.78.040 Design Standards

The Montville Township Environmental Commission recommends that Chapter 16.78.040 entitled “Design Standards” include a new subsection entitled Subsection F: Environmental Design Standards.  The inclusion of an Environmental Design Standards section within the proposed ordinance will strongly reiterate the Township’s acknowledgement of the importance of the underlying Towaco Valley Aquifer and Montville’s efforts to protect and preserve this unique and valuable resource.  This section would mandate developers within the TC1 and TC-2 Zones to implement various Environmental Design Standards or Green Engineering methods and techniques to minimize any potential environmental impact.  As well, this section would encourage Sustainable Building designs that could potentially be used throughout the township.  To this end, the MTEC stands ready to assist with the development of the “Environmental Design Standards” subsection

Also, as eluded to in the Proposed Towaco Center Master Plan (page 13), this section should include verbiage concerning enhanced or more stringent storm water management requirements. 

The Montville Township Environmental Commission wishes to establish and maintain an open and continuous dialog with the Planning Board and other township agencies to provide further appropriate and necessary input with respect to environmental issues as this proposal evolves over time.  End

Gary Lewis:  this board has championed sustainability.  Three bullet points in report would be required to take place.  Mr. Perry:  whatever coverage is stands.   Planning Board is proposing 75% and this is something that should be further looked at.  This needs to be done.  He indicated that although he respects board professionals, we are dealing with environmentally sensitive area.  Mr. Burgis:  Only impacting small area of prime.  Discussion ensued.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated we have Vincent Uhl’s report and respect it.  Mr. Perry feels we need a detailed hydrogeology report for 75%

Kathy Fisher, HPRC:  reviewed request to have HPRC Element referenced to within document, and highlighted other areas of concern to the HPRC in preserving historic significance of area.  Her concerns related to the need to further protect and define existing structures and to further identify historic resources.  Morris Canal is mentioned.  These revisions should be in accordance with HRPC and infill should be addressed on plan.  The master plan needs to identify character.  Madison was embellished by working with their historic buildings.  She indicated there is no reference made to HPRC master plan.  This plan must comply with intent and promote historic and she doesn’t feel it is aligned to the.  She feels we should consider future grant funding from the Crossroads initiatives and she doesn’t want to see historic character affected.  She mentioned that the master plan may want to reference recreational and towpath/Canal bed for use, and finalized discussions noted that the HPRC wants to work with Planning Board. 

Mrs. Fisher referenced a 2003 Report from HRPC, and hadn’t heard until now on these planning projects going thru this process. 

Michele Caron:  2 Brook Lane.  As to proposal of parking lot displayed, there will be only 168’ from the front of her house on Brook Lane and she doesn’t want to see a parking lot.  This will destroy neighborhood.  Joe Burgis: indicated that he couldn’t shift things around since constraints exist in that the wetlands wrap around lands.  Ms. Catron asked how these residents are benefitted from this. 

Mr. Burgis:  township maintains existing buffers in current codes of 150’ from industry zone. Historically the township made a determination by our codes that 100’ is adequate, and this buffer reflected is 168’.  He indicated he can take edge of this parking lot and supplement it with buffer plant materials to make sure that it is nothing visible.  He feels he can create a buffer requirement that would offset concerns voiced. 

Ms. Caron indicated she feels the lights will be visible and voiced concerns about noise.  Mr. Burgis indicated there are many ways to mitigate these issues, and the reality is that there are plant materials that exist to ensure this, and the Board will require a certain light fixture and will make sure that there is no light glow.  He is confident it can be addressed.  And that Montville will make sure that all of the design standards protect this, and this board is not obviating this in this area.  Mr. Karkowsky:  indicated that we have been faced with this in certain areas and that it can work.    

Dave Scelba, a member of Old Towne properties expressed his concern over delay for over 5 years ago.  He indicated his plans were thrown in with the master plan.  He expressed concerns with loss of associates who were involved in this plan, noting that had four and are down to 3 involved in Old Towne, all who though area could be improved, yet went thru many changes in mayors and planning boards, and feels it is the same year after year.  There are six entities that own within the TC1.  We are not about to become partner with it.  Understand the situation but you have to understand the financial burden.  If you don’t do something, the redevelopment planned by Old Towne won’t go forward, cannot financially do this anymore. 

George Anthrop, Douglas Drive – expressed questions and doubt about only has five children generated from this.  He feels that when parents of school age kids find they can get a child’s education for a price of a month’s rent to get a kid in school system, they will come in droves.  This number is wrong. 

Mr. Anthrop asked:  How did the plan change from studios to one bedroom?  Who is responsible?  Who changed plan?  Mr. Burgis indicated it was his option.  Looked at original plan and found that the original plan had a deck dimension of 40’ for retail use and if in real estate, you would know that no one builds storefront with 40’ depth.  Mr. Burgis indicated single family use could be condo vs. rental  And as to the children, he indicated he has worked in all manner of communities, and find the impact of children in this community based on history from these other communities. 

People find this hard to believe.  This is a concept, and the Township is not developers.   We work on designing controls to have a good sense.  Mr. Burgis elaborated.

Mr. Anthrop asked who decides how large the apartment decides.  Mr. Burgis:  we cannot impose minimum or maximum coverage requirements.

Anna Walker, Waughaw Road – 9 acres of natural beauty and history and not sure putting houses of any kind and putting in a parking lot is worth it and doesn’t see how you encourage public transportation. 

Vincent Zimmerly, Pine Brook Road – concerns on parking lot design?  Who will build it?  He indicated it appeared that to make this project work, someone has to buy the entire site to make the parking lot work.  Mr. Burgis reviewed plan.  He indicated one of the items shown on this is access from this property to any adjoining land.  Where there is building, in order to have one circulation plan, the Planning Board would mandate that property owners would have to provide an access easement allowing cars to go into adjoining property.  This way you don’t need all 6 owners as one group, but the controls are there to ensure that over time they would all be linked up

Cheryl Trent, 4 Pomono Avenue – why do you need multi-family units at all and was it for the Grant?  Mr. Burgis:  Grant was $50,000.  The underlying basis is not related to the grant’s needs.  In terms of design and in terms of making this economically attractive, you need something on second floor.  In terms of parking and traffic generation demand, office would generate more traffic.  Land Use alternatives are more attractive of the two.  In terms of the grant, and in meeting with Smart Growth, they encouraged more residential units but from a planning perspective, this was not driving force.  Ms. Trent asked:  What are benefits to residents?  Mr. Burgis elaborated that we can ask for improvements from the State.  Mr. Burgis explained site plan requirements and what is required of an applicant and the township codes.  Ms. Trent voiced concerns about building on the aquifer, and Mr. Burgis explained that this plan is similar to a blueprint.

Kathy Benson, 20 Marguerite Lane – Asked for clarification as to the October review and this hearing?  Mr. Burgis indicated at that time the Board gave a presentation, which was not a public hearing.  We weren’t prepared to adopt in October.  Ms. Benson felt this plan is wrong for this area.  Mr. Burgis indicated there were at least 15 hearings on it.   Ms. Benson didn’t think the plan spoke for the residents, and that there should be a committee involved in this review process. 

Maureen Lake, Indian Lane

Discussed numbers as it relates to 45 units.  Mr. Burgis indicated this number is for the overall site.    Asked if there were studies conducted as to school children?  Have any studies been done?  Mr. Burgis indicated he review two other studies involved in development application, not part of this study.  In order to do so, you would have to find a plan compatible to what is being considered here.  There are rental depends including demand for affordable housing.

In Summit, per Gary Lewis, this town underwent a similar project.  The Burgis firm wasn’t used here, but the result was the same set of recommendations and expected number for another project.  The numbers were identical.  You have to find a transit development. 

TC1 and TC2 commented that Park and Majorica is out of TC2.  Why is Indian Hill Road left in?  Why are we rezoning houses that are currently residential with single family units?  Why are they included in this?    Mr. Burgis:  Park and Majorca are dead end streets.  The distribution of the property near this roadway is different. 

Mr. Asfor  - Canal Road – thanks everyone but can’t understand scope of this plan, also indicating he understands point of view expressed by Mr. Scelba understand economics of it.  Dialogue ensued with Mr. Scelba and Mr. Asfor on merits and detriments of Towaco Center.   

Robin Nowicki - Nowak Lane – heard a lot of us and applaud amount of work that goes into this.  We have to move forward as a town.  We need a town center. 

Motion made by:  to close to public made by Art Daughtry

Seconded by Larry Hines


Ladis Karkowky indicated the Planning Board will discuss this plan at this time.  Mr. Daughtry:  questioned wetlands, mitigation and handling of flood conditions, noting Morris County’s work, and questioned if there is some kind of impact, is there some way that an existing structure in the prime, can he get a recharge.  Mr. Burgis indicated that based on the review of all of these comments and the re-examination of these design works, he felt he can cut back on the 75% impervious number.  Mr. Omland:  can balance a component by adding a credit, and all of our ordinances provide for enhanced protection.

Mr. Neilson:  noted that in earlier reviews, we didn’t have wellhead ordinances and stormwater ordinances, noting that she understands the new mandates require 80% pollutants to be removed, and our standards are more restrictive.  When this first came up, we did not have these enhanced requirements.  In the CWR, we increased this from 80% to 95%,.  Obligation of recharge also enhanced beyond what state was required.  If developer cannot do it, then the project doesn’t go forward.  All of these protections are in the ordinances now.  They border on being impossible to provide.  There are environmental measures in place now that did not exist in the past.

Of paramount importance is our drinking water.  As a practical matter, Whitehall Road side is only one piece of property that can be developed at about 1 ½ acres and is located next to animal clinic.  Others areas are in the train ROW.  There are only about 1 ½ acres in this area.  Look at some of the areas along in TC2 on corner of Jacksonville Way, and some of these are developed already, and there may be redevelopment here.  There are some vacant properties, next to Goddard school, and we are very mindful of these concerns.  The planners indicated there won’t be massive developers.  But there may be developers that can’t be before the Board because of codes, and there is a plus to ensure that the development if it occurs occurs within our development review process.

Also understands the traffic numbers, understanding this is a local benefit but it is really a mutual benefit.  We have controls with aquifer.  Have spent countless hours reviewing this, and don’t want to do anything to affect our residents and our town.

Mrs. Kull:  understand that this is a concept, and this is a way to enhance Towaco section.  Doesn’t mean that we will have tons of development and that we will keep historic part of it, and ambiance there, and that none of us would let it run away?  It will be taken care of.

Mr. Maggio:  feels it is an excellent job.  One question:  an applicant who comes in with a traffic study, what is required?   The issue of traffic study discussed with Mr. Omland.  The traffic study is required under current ordinance, any applicant is required to do traffic counts, intersection counts and evaluate existing traffic flow and make a determination of how much traffic is generated.  We hire our own traffic expert.

Mr.  Karkowsky:  right now we have the Master Plan and also the ordinance attached to it, but feels the ordinance can be tweaked more.  Can you consider voting on master plan and continue work on the zoning ordinance?  Mr. Carroll:  you can separate the master plan from the zoning ordinance, acting on the master plan and carrying zoning ordinance. 

Mr. Lewis:  indicated he is not prepared to recommend ordinance.  With regard to master plan component, although he has only been here since 2006, he found it unbelievable about the number of rezoning applications that this community is faced with currently and that tells me either your zoning is obsolete or you are not keeping pace with current vision.  He is not resistant to comments, but what worried more is quite frankly ‘what will happen if the township doesn’t plan comprehensively’.  He continued:  What I see happen is that a person that owns a parcel has an idea to best handle his site, and are asking to look at this in a single vacuum and not what is best for a plan for the entire area.  He heard concerns about aquifer, and think that these things are adequately addressed as part of the site plan.  As to Environmental Commission and Mr. Perry’s concerns, sustainability is one of the things to minimize water and energy and give back trade back for development rights and we will continued to champion that. 

Thinks we need to have an economic plan.  Owners of this property are not going to make this site just purely for the benefit of Montville.  We have to adopt a plan.  Having heard all of the concerns, he moved to say it is a good plan and proud to make a Motion

Russ Lipari:  indicated he has lived in Towaco for 36 years and has been on this board for a long time, and feels strongly about what was said:  ‘that this plan and ordinance will be something to protect the area’.   He acknowledged comments of the residents but we need to get something going here, to control it and to have this type of participation with the ordinance and when an application comes in, can do the right job.

John Visco:  resident of Towaco for many years and note the question raised “what are we doing for residents of Towaco’.  Mr. Visco responded ‘We are making a plan’.  There will be a development at some point, and these developers do not care about anyone else. They care about their parcel only.  We are getting a master plan so that as people come in, they come in with a planned method and structure.  We are giving them something that has a plan that makes some sense to it.

Mr. Karkowsky clarified that we are separating the master plan and we will look at the zoning ordinance and tweak it.  Mr. Lipari indicated no objection to that.  The zoning ordinance has to go to the Township Committee and it has to be addressed by them also.

Gary Lewis:  we had a lot of input tonight.  Some of it might well translate into an adjustment of the ordinance that will address residential concerns.  Not sure we are under any recommendation to offer it and we should empower the planner to review this and look at ordinance, as it relates to screening, one last look, and impervious coverage look.

Move master plan by Gary Lewis

Seconded by Russ Lipari

Roll call:  Russ Lipari, Gary Lewis, Larry Hines, John Visco, Marie Kull, Art Maggio, Art Daughtry, Ladis Karkowksy, Tony Speciale, Vic Canning – YES

Deb Nielson – No

Zoning Ordinance carried to February 14, 2008 agenda for discussion.

Update on Highlands Mapping – Stan Omland, PE – not discussed – carried to 2/28/08

Impact Ordinance – General Discussion/Review – rescheduled 2/14/08

Professional services agreement – Mrs. White indicated she needed to have the Board adopt new resolutions appointing the Board’s professionals since there is a new form the Township requires.  Motion made by:  Russ Lipari, seconded by Mr. Speciale to appoint Stan Omland, PE, Michael Carroll, Esq. and Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP, seconded by tony Speciale – Roll call unanimous

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

This matter rescheduled to 2-14-08




PSPP/FC/PMN07-08 KEATING, Wm.  – 137 Rt. 202 – B: 51, L: 33 & 28 – Prel/final site plan/minor subdivision with variances for medical office – Approved 12/12/07 Eligible:  Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Russ Lipari, Anthony Speciale,

Motion made by:  to adopt made by:  Tony Speciale, Seconded by Deb Nielson.  Roll:  Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Russ Lipari, Tony Speciale – Yes





Minutes of 1-10-08 – Ladis Karkowksy, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Arthur Maggio, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale & Victor Canning 

Minutes of 1-15-08S – Ladis Karkowksy, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry

Motion made by:  Russ Lipari

Seconded by: Marie Kull

Roll call:  Unanimous



Uhl Baron – Trust for: O/E for: $1,000; $1,925.00 – K&S Old Lane Subdivision Review; $1,455.00 K&K Woodmont Subdivision Review

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $90

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $300, $1,230 (Pisano), $115, $360, $570, $180, $420

Burgis Associates – O/E for: $30; Trust for: $120, $120

Motion made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded by:  Russ Lipari

Roll call:  Unanimous




PMN06-04 – BECK – Minor Subdivision – B: 31, L: 5, 6 Glen View Road – Request for six months extension.  From 1/30/08 to 7/30/08

Motion made by:  Marie Kull

Seconded: Larry Hines

Roll call: Unanimous

PMS/C 07-18 –  BEYER BROS. CORP.- 57 Route 46 East, Block 184, Lot 2 Site Plan & Variances                - Notice Acceptable                 TENTATIVE

Rescheduled to:

March 27, 2008





Meeting adjourned unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack