PB Minutes 2-28-08 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Mr. Maggio- entrance noted              Mr. Karkowsky - present

Ms. Kull - present                                Mr. Daughtry - present

Ms. Nielson - present                         Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari - present                              Mr. Lewis - absent

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

                                                                Mr. Speciale (alt#1) – present

Also Present:

Stan Omland, PE

Michael Carroll, Esq.

Robyn Welch, Planner










Secretary announced carried hearings:

PMSP/F07-13 – MAROTTA – Block: 1, L: 11.57, 29 and 31.04 #2 Pennbrook Court – Notice Acceptable                  

Rescheduled to 3-27-08 with notice preserved in a motion made by: Russ Lipari

Seconded by:  Larry Hines

Roll Call:  Unanimous

PSPP/FC 98-19-07-19 – RBR INVESTMENTS, 321 Changebridge Road, Block: 160.2, L: 18 – Amended/Final Site Plan/Variances & Final

Rescheduled to 3/27/08 with notice required



Towaco Center Update on Ordinance


Mrs. White indicated that the ordinance was not finalized for this evening’s meeting and rescheduled the subject to March 13, 2008 agenda. 

Master Plan/Re-examination Proposal  


Mrs. White indicated this cost proposal was not available for this evening, and would be rescheduled on the March 13th board agenda. 

Update on Highlands Mapping – Stan Omland, PE

Mr. Omland summarized indicated that the anticipated date for final adoption is sometime in May.  If Township May is final adoption.  Highlands Council will be focused on this.  If Township wishes them to come out and offer a presentation, they are willing to do this.  Discussion ensued on the mapping.

The GI/Home Depot/Kevah Konner properties in the Rt. 46 are not shown either as already developed, and have a highlands designation that will create development problems and is a blatant issue with the proposed mapping. 

Mr. Daughtry reminded the Planning Board that the Board did send a letter to the original Highlands Commission with all of the township’s issues, noting they we included a lot of data along with a map that highlighted all of the areas already developed, subject to further development, pending development, pending grants with DCA for Smart Grown, and didn’t use any of this data to address changes to this final map proposal. 

Mr. Omland indicated that the map displayed in the municipal meeting room on the wall is the actual map slated to be adopted.  He indicated that the Highlands have not taken any map changes from the municipality, indicating that they said they wouldn’t make changes like this based on municipal request.   The map on the wall is the most recent publication of the revised map changes from November 18th

Mr. Karkowsky:  The highlands did not take our concerns and input into consideration.  Mr. Daughtry suggested a short letter sent by certified letter to indicating that although we supplied them with supporting data and studies as well as a map depicting these areas, that they totally disregarded factual information.   Stan Omland indicated that the most recent map creates subzones.   Mrs. White will send this letter out from Planning Board. 

COAH update - RESCHEDULED TO 3-13-08

Mrs. White indicated that she rescheduled this subject for March 13th agenda when Mr. Burgis would be available to discuss.









Subcommittee Minutes of 2/6/08 – Deb Nielson, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry, Gary Lewis, Ladis Karkowsky

Minutes of 2/14/08 - Roll call: Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale (alt#1) and Vic Canning (alt#2).

Subcommittee Minutes of 2/26/08 – Deb Nielson, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry, Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco

Motion made by:  Russ Lipari

Seconded by: Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous


Omland Engineering – Trust for: $1,560 (FHN Cuisine), $120, $420

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $30, $67.50, $337.50, $780

Burgis Associates – O/E for: $120, $600; Trust for: $630, $680, $720, $600, $150, $240, $640

Bricker & Associates – Trust for: $840

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $135

Motion made by:  Russ Lipari

Seconded by: Tony Speciale

Roll call:  Unanimous




PSPF04-05-07-20 FHN Cuisine (Inn at Montville) - 167 & 161 Main Rd. - B: 51, L: 47 & 43 – amended site plan      – Notice Acceptable

                                                                                    ACT BY: 3/14/08

Mrs. White summarized that this is an amended approval to allow some changes to the original approval.   Mr. Omland indicated that one of the major differences from prior reviews is that since then the adjacent lot is now totally owned by the owner of Montville Inn.  Mr. Omland referenced a memo describing some of the changes in the field, indicating that he spoke with Mr. Barile and believes that most of the items were inspected by Mr.  Barile and found satisfactory. 

Present:  Marc Walker, PE sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq. 

Randy Frankel, Owner sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.

Board professionals and staff were also sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.

Mr. Walker, credentials previously accepted, testified that there are a couple of minor variances, some waivers and internal seating changes.  Mr. Frankel will discuss interior of the building and some of the landscaping changes on exterior of building.

Mr. Frankel indicated that as to landscaping, when here previously, the Planning Board asked for landscaping in the rear and side of Montville Inn.  That request was to provide a buffer between Mr. Galley’s house.  Although the paper plan looked good, there was only a 3’ tract of dirt and shade in this area, and whatever landscaping that was proposed to be installed wouldn’t work.  Accordingly,  he met with the adjacent property owner and indicated that the landscaping would be installed on his side of property, putting up blue spruce in this area since this was general intent of the Planning Board when first requesting the trees in this immediate area.   

Interior changes discussed.  Mr. Frankel indicated that once opening the site, a lot of the parties coming into the restaurant are in the 12-16 people category for the upstairs banquet room which seats and is set up for 65 people, which obviously did not create a cozy environment for a banquet affair.  To respond to this, he reviewed the building, noting he had a 18x18 area in the basement that would be perfect to host up to 18 people, and is requesting permission to utilize this area for small groups.  He stressed he is not looking for any more seats, just looking for permission to reallocate the previously approved seating on each level.    

As part of this request, he indicated many customers discussed and asked about the possibility of outside dining during seasonable times and he would like to have the ability to move 4-5 tables from inside main restaurant to the outside porch area.  Again, there would be no additional seating just relocating some of the previously additional seating.

He summarized that there would only be the previously approved 152 seats and that the request is for substitution and relocation of some of the previously approved seating layout.  There will be no increase in seating at all based on these requests.  

Mr. Walker discussed the Omland Report of 2/28/08 as to site plan comments.  As to the entry aisle along Rt. 202, the original plan required the relocation of the utility pole, but the contractor Mr. Braden indicated the utility company wouldn’t move the pole due to their equipment existing in the area.  They then worked with Morris County on the redesign.  Mr. Walker indicated that the amended final application has been submitted to the County Planning Board, and he is confident that the County Planning Board will sign off on this modification since they were involved in the change.

Second item discussed was the roll off dumpster.  Mr. Walker indicated there is an enclosure that has a roof and is designed like a small stoned house and fits in very well with site design.  There was also a separate roll off dumpster that was put on site without permit.  The owner is currently waiting for something inside restaurant that will be able to allow them to use the existing dumpster since it will provide for some interior disposal that will eliminate the need for the roll-off dumpster.  Once this is installed, the other dumpster will be removed since the main dumpster will handle all recycling.  This should happen within four weeks, and the recycling laws require two separate dumpsters, so this should address this issue satisfactorily.

The third item deals with the gate that was required under prior approval between properties.  Now that there is one owner, this was removed from site plan since there was no longer a need to control that. 

As to the drywell system being located on site, he indicated Mr. Braden gave him a sketch where contractor installed it and this information was reflected on this final plan.  Mr. Walker indicated he was not involved in any inspections on the installation, assuming local engineering was involved.  Mr. Walker cannot give a certification on this system, but he is sure the contractor can provide a certification to the respond to the drywell installation.

Item 5 deals with variance needed for one additional freestanding sign.   Mr. Walker indicated the original was for one freestanding sign.  During operation of the facility, people driving down River Road didn’t know the entrance was located there, and for safety reasons, the owner added another small sign in this location.  It is not interior lit.  The other sign is constructed on Rt. 202.  These combined signs total 10 sq. ft.  The previously approved freestanding sign was for 15 sq. ft.

(Note:  Art Maggio entered)

The other sign on Rt. 202 was constructed within the County ROW, and the County notified the applicant that they have no issues with the sign in ROW.  As part of the final approval, they will sign off on this aspect also.

The applicant now needs this variance for 2 signs where one permitted with the primary reason for the second sign for safety purposes only.

As to No 6 in Mr. Omland’s report, Mr. Walker investigated site lighting.  He indicated the site lighting complies with original approved plans and is essentially constructed same as plans except that one was move to common line between two lots which enhanced lighting.  One area on the site was not brightly lit since it was adjacent to the neighbor on Kokora Street (lot 58, B: 51) who attended all of the prior meetings and voiced concern on this lighting issue.  As a result these areas of parking spaces are dimly lit, but the lighting has worked out well.

As to No. 7, Mr. Walker indicated that this was the landscaping issue, and that Mr. Frankel testified to the reasons for changes.

He indicated another variance was for the dumpster not being constructed in the exact location previously approved at 20’.  It was constructed at 15’1 where 20’ was required.  After inspecting site, and looking at any potential impact to neighbors, he noted there is fencing along property line; the neighbor’s lot is higher so there is no impact from this dumpster due to elevation and fact of being heavily screened.  The dumpster was constructed with excellent workmanship.

The other variance required is impervious coverage.  The plan was originally 75.7 where 55% was allowed.  Thru the construction changes, it went to 78.4% an increase of 2.9% and is minor, but ½ of the increases was due to some site changes and others as a result of Mr. Walker’s mistake on original filing.  Since a lot of pavements have been eliminated, the overall affect to site and the actual increase of 2.9% is diminious.  To achieve compliance with code, some of the parking spaces would have to be eliminated.  What should have requested was wrong in original application as calculated by Mr. Walker. 

Waivers on parking discussed:  In the rear of site, there was a utility pole that could not be removed as well due to guide wire.  To keep in a stable situation, the retaining wall had to be moved closer to parking spaces, and that required elimination of 2’ overhang.  9x18’ is ordinance with 2’ overhang.  Thus, applicant requires a waiver from this requirement.  He visited the site and determined there is no impact from this. 

Another waiver relates to the distance from property line off of Rt. 202 since the parking space closest to road adjacent to building is 5’1” from ROW where 10’ required.  There is still 25’ from edge of parking space to travelled way of Rt. 202.  In the past, the entire area before new construction was totally paved as well as parking in the county roadway.  Although relief is needed, this is a substantial improvement from original approval.

Waiver also required for a parking space be closer to building since the parking space next to porch is 2’ where 2’1.7 feet required. 

Mr. Walker noted he received a report from Mr. Barile’s office which discussed entrance configuration due to inability of changing utility pole which was addressed, as well as the issue of location of dry wells.  He will have to deal with contractors to address this comment.   He then reviewed Mr. Burgis report, and applicant has no issues with this report.

Mr. Hines:  on reallocation of seating within the 18 x 18 area, you indicated you can hold up to at least 18 maximum numbers of people.  Floor plan reflects 10 people?   Can you clarify?  Mr. Frankel indicated that he feels the size of the room can support 18 maximum.

He asked for confirmation on outside seating:  Mr. Frankel indicated that there will be 3-5 tables on porch and these are again substitutions from internal seating.  They will physically remove them from inside to outside, and there will be the same number of seats.  Mr. Hines asked if there would be permanent seating downstairs.  Mr. Frankel indicated he hasn’t looked at construction yet, but was going to have it look more like a private wine room with perhaps a basic set of fixed feature.  Mr. Frankel indicated no set construction plans yet.

Ms. Nielson asked for confirmation from Mr. Carroll indicating that he understands that this approval runs with the land so that the maximum number of seats at any one time is 152.  Mr. Hines voiced concerns on the difficulty as to how do you police it.  Ms. Nielson:  didn’t think we would have a problem with this since any approval will be clearly indicated so that there is no change in seating capacity.  Mr. Carroll:  the seating does not run with the land, but new tenants would have to address this issue in any change.  Ms. Nielson:  understand that they would be subject to modification of prior approval then when anyone else appears before board.   

Mr. Daughtry:  some of the comments made by the applicant have been voiced, but Mr. Daughtry asked the board professionals if there was anything that you haven’t heard tonight that still needs to be addressed.  Stan Omland:  the approved plan indicates spruce running across back of adjacent lot.  Not uncommon to modify landscaping in field, but following value and intent of landscaping replacement is the objective with field changes and he does not believe the spruce was installed in rear of office.  Mr. Walker:  Plan shows Norway spruce in rear of office building.  Mr. Frankel indicated that they planted them between the property line and neighbor to the south.  Behind this area is board on board and double sheds located on the office lot.  Mr. Omland:  the question is what has changed from original approval.  Mr. Frankel:  although the trees were shown, there is board on board fencing there and although trees were meant to buffer office building view, he now owns the office building and found no need to soften office building site.  Mr. Frankel asked board to ‘waive’ this requirement.

Opened to public

Sean Nedermield - 3 Kokora Ave – clarification requested on the dumpster.  He home is the one with the fence.  The dumpster was against fence.  The dumpster has since been moved, but wants clarification on some items referenced, and to ask about the bike rack and junk stacked up in this area noting the fence is pushed in from this site and from the garbage truck picking it up.  If the dumpster is moved back into the interior dumpster building, then he would be satisfied.  Mr. Frankel indicated he will respond to the fence issue with neighbor.

David Cox – 7 Kokora Avenue – signage indicates Circa.  Are we doing anything with this?  Is there a problem with this word being used?  .  Mr. Frankel explained that he used this word since there was no exact date, it is not meant to be historical.

Mr. Ken Galley – indicated that the development of this site did not turn out as bad as they thought it would be.  He explained the landscaping changes, noting that they are actually arborvitaes inside his fence and blends well with River Road side.  He did note that he felt that the entrance on River Road is a concern since he has seen people make a left turn, and although you aren’t supposed to make a left, if it was closed up this would be eliminated and he would gain some more parking spaces.

No further comments

Closed to public unanimously in a motion made by:  Russ Lipari, seconded by Art Daughtry

Motion made by:  to grant amended preliminary and amended final approval made by Deb Nielson, seconded by Tony Speciale, compliance with County Planning Board approval final report, certification of dry well system, granting of all variances and waivers requested,  permission to reallocate seating within facility subject to compliance with 152 overall seating, compliance with all previously approved conditions, subject to roll off dumpster being removed entirely from site four weeks from adoption of the resolution memorializing this action,  normal applicable conditions of approval.

Roll call vote:  Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco,  Art Maggio, Russ Lipari,  Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale (alt #1) & Ladis Karkowsky

PSPP/FC 98-19-07-19 – RBR INVESTMENTS, 321 Changebridge Road, Block: 160.2, L: 18 – Amended/Final Site Plan/Variances & Final

Rescheduled to 3-27-08

PMN03-12 – ACKER - 174 Pine Brook Road – Modification to previously approved subdivision re: sidewalks, road widening

Mrs. White summarized the issue on the minor subdivision which was approved by the board in 2003.  At that time the applicant agreed to install sidewalks, curbing and some road widening.  When he went to start improvements, the Township was going to be doing sewer work and the Township also had a grant to do street work on Pine Brook Road, so the Township Administrator, Joe Rompala, agreed with the homeowner that he would use the performance guarantee posted for these improvements relieving the property owner of this obligation.  Since then, the bond has been renewed with no change in notification to homeowner. 

The Township cannot utilize a Performance Guarantee to do improvements, but Mrs. White indicated that after speaking with the Township Attorney, these monies can be posted in cash by Ms. Acker to allow Township to perform work.  Since then, various other circumstances along this roadway have changed.  Accordingly, Mr. Barile reviewed the property to make some recommendations on the previously approved road widening, sidewalk and curbing.  He found that while road widening is definitely appropriate at that location, the need exists far beyond the limits of this subdivision. 

He felt widening this limited section will not substantially alleviate this condition and the horizontal and vertical alignment of such widening may not be compatible with some future plan for improvements to Pine Brook Road.   He also noted that it is his opinion that the construction of sidewalks in that area will place an undue maintenance responsibility on property owners for sidewalks that most likely will go unused.  Accordingly, his recommendation is that it would be more appropriate that the applicant deposit funds with the Township based on the original cost estimate, to be used at a later date for a comprehensive road improvement project. 

These are all exceptions, and in order to ensure public record is accurate, she indicated if the subcommittee found this agreeable, she would coordinate obtaining the cash deposit from Ms. Acker to go forward, and at the same time, she would put this on the public record this Thursday so that the exceptions can be granted.  She also discussed this issue with Mr. Omland, Mr. Bastone and Mr. Mazzaccaro, and the Township Attorney who are all in agreement.   Subcommittee had no objection to this and indicated to put on the 2-28-08 agenda to update public records and to allow this issue to be resolved. 

Motion made to grant waiver from installation of sidewalks and widening of roadway made by:  Art Daughtry

Seconded:  Larry Hines

Roll call:  Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco,  Art Maggio, Russ Lipari,  Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale (alt #1) & Ladis Karkowsky Unanimous


PMN/C07-07 - NARDONE, JERALD – 4 Kokora Ave. – B: 51, L: 50 – minor Subdivision w/variances - Notice Acceptable                   ACT BY:  1/10/08

(Note:  Mr. Karkowsky stepped down due to receiving notice within 200’)


Michael Sullivan, Esq.

Joseph Mianecki, PE – sworn

Application is for a minor subdivision to create two lots.  Lot 51.01 will house existing single family home, and new home on remaining lot.  Lot area variances are required:   27,000 sq. ft. minimum required, and both lots will be 15,000 +/-; will need setback variance for front yard setback on proposed home seeking 33’3 and each lot doesn’t comply with 5,000 sq. ft. building area; also seeking RSIS for installation of curb and sidewalk along Kokora since none exist now.

Joseph Mianecki:  accepted as professional PE.  Sheet 3 of 5 marked as Exhibit A1 dated 2-28-08. – sworn

Mr. Mianecki:   subject property is second lot in off of River Road offering description of the property.  In the north east corner is an existing home/driveway/garage.  All of the improvements are located in easterly side.  Applicant is breaking lot into two squares with 125’ of frontage and depth.  Both lots will be equal in size since lot was split into half.  There are substantial trees in front of property, which will be maintained on this property. 

Current front yard setback is 10’6 for house.  Mr. Burgis report indicates that there should be a 5’ ROW dedication, and if done, this additional ROW would be close to stairs of house.  Road width ranges from 17’ to 20’, and there is no way to expand road.  Proposed home would be 3,020 sq. ft.  House is reflected on site drawings.  He discussed extension of sanitary lines.   Existing house is about 1 ½ story at 1,500 sq. ft.  Drainage will be handled on site.  He is familiar that there can be no increase in the storm water run off and complied accordingly. 

Discussion ensued on lack of the 5,000 sq. ft. building envelope.  There is no adverse issue with slopes.  Feels there is no reason for objection to grant this relief due to configuration of lot.  

Mr. Mazzaccaro’s Oct. 10, 2007 report asked for additional off site storm sewer improvements.  Discussion ensued on Kokoro on frontage and having the applicant provide additional work.  Drainage flow discussed.  Mr. Mazzaccaro request for the additional work would cost approximately $35,000.  This is an off-site improvement.  Mr. Sullivan’s position:  Is it necessary for construction of one new home and does development of this new home create more problems.  Mr. Sullivan indicated he asked the Board to waive this request.  Mr. Sullivan indicated he agreed to most all of the agency reports except for this request water and sewer waiver. 

Concern noted by Mr. Mazzaccaro was noticed on this application by Mr. Daughtry.  Mr. Carroll indicated that perhaps the report should have been authored by someone else.  Mr. Sullivan:  just wants a waiver from this requirement, and will comply with all other agency reports.

Mr. Lipari:  understands there are variances requested?  Questioned if there is an effect to the neighbors?  Mr. Mianecki:  feels there is no effect.  On Board of Health report, Mr. Lipari indicated they asked that one of the homes will still have a well?  Has it been retested?  Mr. Sullivan indicated that he notified the property owner that the Board of Health wanted it retested, and that he would put this in writing, but this is up to the property owner to respond to this.

Mr. Maggio:  what is the recommendation as to the extra sewer pipe and what can we do?  Mr. Carroll:  reminded Planning Board of the Au application which was a corner lot subdivision and the Planning Board imposed that they widen a road, put in sidewalks and since it was a corner lot the area in question was several hundred feet long despite the fact all of the improvements were on the property itself, Judge Stanton ruled that if is beyond scope of subdivision, these types of improvements could not be required.  General rule is that a relatively necessary approval but grossly out of line with development is a problem.  The Planning Board must determine if there is a necessity for this pipe. 

Mr. Sullivan:  if the offsite is necessitate or required by this application, then it is fair game and we have to determine ‘share’.  The link between this development and impact must be established by this board.

Mr. Maggio:  engineer stated the water wouldn’t change due to one additional home being developed.  Currently water goes on property across and down, and he is catching it and putting it into a drywell.  The drywell is for new home.  Mr. Mianecki indicated they performed soil logs and it is all sandy soil.

Mr. Omland:  in his view, if there was an impact to public, drainage improvements would be required.  To the extent that the drainage problem exists to the neighborhood, he would ask that you consider additional drywells.  This area has excellent soils.  Applicant can put in additional drywells toward driveway and/or house to ensure no impact.  Applicant will concur and will resolve with Mr. Omland.

Mr. Omland:  is the home scheduled to be demolished?  Mr.  Sullivan:  no contractual obligation on this lot, but if so, then at the time of new construction, the Township engineer will have to deal with new lot grading.

Mr. Omland:  wants assurance on no tree removal, and also wants verification as to protection of trees that are on properties close to this site.  Would want to know on westerly property line where there are good sized trees existing and where driveways will be close to this area what assurances and protections will be provided.  Mr. Mianecki indicated they will put additional security at drip line.  Mr. Omland spoke to the large trees on frontage, installation of drywells, and noted there will be some fill on threes trees up to as much as a 1’ or more in these areas.  The applicant must ensure that these trees must be protected and these trees have a larger drip line and canopy.  Applicant concurred.

Ms. Welch:  in the Burgis 9-10-08 memo, the trees should have the limit of the disturbance line extended around them.  Plan will be revised to reflect same.

Mr. Daughtry:  how does it impact us if lot 42 across street is developed?  Mr. Omland:  question relates to drainage pollution for this project and any other project.  If the soils are as they depicted which are good, then there is a great receptivity to catching this water.  Assumption would be good soils across the street also.  Mr. Omland:  elaborated on depositing funds into an improvement fund for drainage improvements.  If the costs for the work on this property are put into a fund for entire work on Kokora, would be a benefit.  Mr. Maggio:  what type of basin is developed?  Mr. Omland:  the cost of improvements could be $500 to a $1000 per location.  It would be about $6,000-$7,000 for this work.

Opened to public – none

Ms. Nielson:  on soil erosion plan, protection should be during the entire construction period. 

Mr. Lipari:  what about staging of construction equipment. Mr. Sullivan:  would have a pre-construction meeting.  Ms. Nielson:  wants assurance that there would be no parking of equipment and trucks except on their lots.  Planning Board would want assurances that there would be no standing/storing/equipment on Kokora.  Applicant agreed.

John McDonough, Planner – sworn

Reviewed existing and proposed conditions, and presented five exhibits. 

A2 marked in – handout of a replicate of tax map

A3 – aerial photo

A4 – aerial close up photo

A5 – series of ground photos (4 in total)

A6 – series of ground photos (8 in total)

A3 discussed.  Exhibit displays established neighborhood between Moore Road and Kokora.  All lots are undersized except for 2 in this area.  Super majority of lots are undersized. 

A2 – reflects all of the existing lots and their size. 

A4 – close up of area focusing on condition of property and this type of development.

A5 – views of the subject property reviewed.

A6 – depicted other houses on street to give character of home; there is a mix of smaller and larger homes in area. 

Zoning in area discussed. 

Believes variances are under C2 in that it brings lot sizes more in harmony with neighborhood.  Subdividing in half would bring it more into conformity and is in line with a 1988 case which found MLUL is met.  Provides new housing stock; promotes public welfare; provides for variety of housing.  Another benefit by virtue of building, landscaping and new landscaping would be to provide a visual enhancement. 

Detriments:  testimony by engineer found no adverse affects.  This C2 balancing justifies C2 variance.  He believes that this subdivision will not affect neighborhood scheme.  14 of 28 lots will be identical to or smaller than.

Next set of variances would be the front setback variance which would be under C1 hardship.  He indicated that when you look at this property it is shallow with depth of 125’ where 200’ is required.  Shallow lot creates a practical difficulty.  

Front setbacks are similar in the neighbor, and this setback will be greater than other houses and meets C2

He discussed building area of 5,000 sq. ft, using the same argument relative to the front setback justifications for this reason:  shallowness of lot creates difficulty due to shape.  The building coverage conforms to ordinance; building is not the issue, land mass is and thus proof for C2. 

There are no additional lands available.  Applicant seeks relief under C2, and can develop a reasonable house.  RSIS is more technical than substantive.  Believes this application is consistent with good planning.  No impact on surrounding properties and no substantial impairment good.  Believes this warrants approval.

Ms. Welch:  exhibit A2?  Did you calculate average lot size in this area? Mr. McDonough reviewed actual lots, the justification for lot area variances, negative impact and how does it relate to master plan?   Mr. McDonough:  you have to look at established neighborhood pattern and would look towards this issue vs that of the Master Plan. 

Discussion ensued on building variance for 5,000 sq. ft. area, with Ms. Welsh asking Mr. McDonough arguing for C1 criteria, wondering if this lot could meet the 5,000 sq. ft. and if you looked at all the lots colored, you cannot get it, and cannot get it on existing lot.  Mr. McDonough:  still couldn’t meet this requirement.     Thinks it is around 4200 sq. ft.  C1 is not the only variance, and also put in testimony in under C2.

Mr. Daughtry:  drainage discussion and lot 42.  The proposed minor subdivision and plan notification missed the property owner at 42.01.  Other than the lot involved in the subdivision on property line, what is most critical lot to this subdivision?  How many other properties are in the same situation with stairway off lot into ROW? 

Mr. McDonough indicated the A2 exhibit is based on actual tax map.   Ms. Nielson:  how can you deal with demo and/or having the existing house responded to as to setbacks?

Mr. Sullivan:  If there is demo, reconstructing would be subject to a variance.  Ms. Nielson:  wondered if it could be locked in now.  If the home was substantially destroyed, couldn’t we lock set back at this level? 

Mr. Daughtry:  he was looking at trying to put a value on the5’ ROW.  Mr. Sullivan indicated that the staircase is 4’ off ROW.  Mrs. Welch:  the value is not much and this is a substantially developed street and no easements and/or ROW could be done.  It would be little value.

Ms. Welch:  also wanted to know that she didn’t ‘want the board to be socked about COAH with proposed rules which aren’t proposed to be adopted until June 2nd, and they are trying to make all of our towns aware of what may affect us and how we may respond to it.  This one lot would accumulate to about ¼ of an affordable housing unit.  Will the applicant respond o address this? 

Mr.  Sullivan:  these are proposed rules that may or may not be adopted, and there is no growth share ordinance in place at this time.  We are under no obligation at this time.  Mr. Carroll:  discussed this with K&S application and the question is ‘what can a municipality do in a retroactive way’, this is a question that this board can answer.  Anything done is at governing body requirement, and there is nothing we can do.  Mr. Daughtry:  I don’t believe anyone is trying to put a new burden on this applicant, but if the state mandates us and we have some kind of language to the extent that ‘if’ the township adopts something, it may be something.  Mr. Carroll indicated nothing we say has much affect, and this is more a Township Attorney question.  Mr. Carroll will put some verbiage in resolution.  Mr. Sullivan:  governing body will adopt an ordinance at that time, when COAH rules are in place, and can’t do it in an ad hoc basis.  Mr. Omland:  COAH report indicates that the new rules are 20% set-aside; for ever four units, you have to supply one affordable. 

Opened to public

David Cox 7 Kokora Avenue.  There are other homes on the block which are close to roadway. 

Motion made by:  Marie Kull Seconded by:  Tony Special to grant subdivision approval, all variances and waivers requested, waiver from compliance with Mr. Mazzaccaro’s request on extension of drainage, compliance with the house and lot plan reflected, additional protection for all trees to ensure they are preserved; normal applicable approval conditions, compliance with all agency findings, except for as relieved herein. 

Russ Lipari:  can we take a contribution on COAH or some type of fund.  Mr. Carroll elaborated on development of an impact ordinance, ,and that Mt. Olive has an impact fee is taken at time of construction permit. 

Mr. Sullivan:  those ordinances are in place in other townships.  Stan Omland:  this township should adopt an ordinance asap so that we can provide whatever protection we want.  We should have some form of ordinance. 

Roll call:  Unanimous

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

Michael Sullivan, Esq.

Mr. Sullivan summarized:  this is an application for preliminary and final major subdivision, contemplates demolition for ten new homes and one detention lots.  All lots require waivers for steep slopes.  Plan shows a proposed cul de sac backing up to existing cul de sac.  Not creating a thru street on this plan.

Some agencies have related to this issue, wanting a through street connecting Woodmont Road entirely, and asked that this matter be addressed this evening.    Also acknowledged applicant will comply with all of Omland Engineering report.  At this time, wants Mr. Cangiano to outline what is proposed as it relates to cul de sac.

Sworn – Mr. Andrew Cangiano – accepted in past with credentials.

Plans prepared by his firm and under his supervision.  Issue of proposed cul de sac discussed.  It is a 10 acre site.  Alignment of the road is off of roadway and will terminate in line with Windsor Road.  Development will consist of 10 conforming lots and one detention lot.  There are no issues with almost all of the comments and will provide plan revisions, and once there is the issue of road decided, will submit drawings with all of these issues.

Mr. Omland:  think that Mr. Mazzaccaro and Mr. Barile were contacted, and our master plan shows that the road is a thru road, and in an application that board heard similar to this, we decided to have back up cul de sacs.  This makes sense but there is policy involved.  Based upon his discussions with these professionals, think this road should go thru and understands it is board policy.

Ms. Welch:  from a planning perspective, should go thru but not a problem if there are two cul de sacs. 

Tony Speciale:  fire department indicated one road connection.  Hilltop Care is still pending.  The present radius of cul de sac is wide enough and adding a fire hydrant will be a benefit.

Konner Road situation was concern for a raceway since it was a main road and straight run. 

Ms. Kull:  how does it affect homeowners on other side?  Feels it should be connected?  Does it impose on their property, no more pavement, some would come out.  Feels it would make more traffic and raceway.  The question is:  if the road is connected.

Mr. Lipari:  how is traffic ‘that increased’?  Mr. Cangiano:  did a count of the houses and approximately 50 houses would use this roadway.

Ms. Nielson:  background in planning, and for safety concerns in general, concur with their expertise.  Live in a corner street and there are about 500 homes and traffic is minimal.

Ms. Omland:  the development that exists to the north of this project that had a stub street, and reason why this was anticipated to be tied in.  Intent of this board years ago was to have this cul de sac connected, and it is reflected in their deeds.

Mr. Karkowsky:  board professionals, fire department agrees it should be connected.

Opened to public…

Ms. Deborah Leblanc- 14 Windsor Drive – abut the cul de sac.  Moved into the neighborhood revolves around cul de sac and is little area to ride bikes, and there are lots of young children in area and this is one area for them to play.   What has happened is that this is a wonderful neighborhood and is a vital part of the fabric of their neighborhood, and to ride their bikes.  There are not a lot of parks in this area.  You are dealing with young children.  With regards to the professionals’ recommendation, have you studied impacts of connection?  What was impact that was identified to property values on proposed lots and existing lots, including Sylvan and Windsor Drive?  What is impact of existing character of neighborhood?  Cul de sac is vital to existing neighborhood.  Will there be changes in traffic?  Will be based on existing conditions if you look at the base line which has no traffic during rush hour when the young children are standing there, with cars whizzing by.  The children would be in danger should the road go thru.  What about children walking to schools.  Have you studied for traffic increase?  Is there a traffic count, but before we approve this, do some traffic studies and figure out the easiest way to get to Changebridge?  Will there be a thru way?  She feels so.    Recommendation from public work would be easier for snow removal and deicing, and look at percentage to have a design for this minimal use? 

Mark Platinsky – 17 Windsor Drive – cut thru should be analyzed to see how Sylvan connects to Windsor since it is dangerous when cars around and is almost a blind side and this may create a Y situation which would be dangerous.

Jack Kilanowski - 22 Sylvan Drive – taking some of the traffic off of Woodmont  Road may be a good idea.  There are four blind corners and taking some off would be a good thing.  The emergency access near the nursing home mentioned.  Those vehicles would go to Rutland and come up to Sylvan which would cause additional problems.  Every second helps.  School – Woodmont has no curbs in many locations, no sidewalks and/or grading, and any traffic deviated off street would enhance this.  See a problem if isn’t connected.  Would like to see right thing, but it would benefit the entire community, and remove cul de sac.

12 Windsor Drive – have children in house that go to school, and they cross over, and you consider connection, what will happen is that people will take Windsor to come to the school. 

Motion made by:  Deb Nielson

Seconded by:  Marie Kull

To close meeting to public on this issue at this time

Roll call:  Unanimous

Deb Nielson:  found some of the arguments compelling, and it is a tough decision, and have to defer to planner and engineer.  There are 100 homes in there with only one way in and one way out, and safety is an issue and contemplated in the master plan for the past 20 + years, would defer to our planner and engineer and master plan. 

Mr. Daughtry:  my concern is that this is unique since this development in itself but up on Windsor Drive when they were professionally challenging Hilltop.  He advocates for residential development which would use this access.  We need to know if this is going to be a cul de sac, need to know what is going to happen with Hilltop emergency.  More burden on this as a street but would prefer thru street. 

Russ Lipari and Art Maggio felt it should be thru street

Tony Speciale:  understand resident’s concerns.  Making this a through street will increase traffic; it is difficult to get out of Windsor Drive to get to Changebridge.  This will become a thru street when school is being dropped off and you have to look at this since it will be more traffic.  That school gets 2 buses, and cars get in line and dropping kids off.  These people in this new home development will have a traffic impact.  Fire Departments can access since it would be different stations servicing the area.

Marie Kull:  is there another road out?  Rutledge?  Feels there is another route that can be taken.  In favor of what the neighbors want, and is torn both ways.  More advisable to have it connected.

John Visco:  look at what the master plan stated, and we should pay attention to what the township master plan wanted.  Larry Hines:  agreed with John Visco. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  go with the majority to support what the board professionals asked for.  Make it a through street. 

Ms. Welch:  you can ask the applicant to put traffic calming in this area that can be done.  Rumble strips or something to calm traffic.  Marie Kull:  what is happening in Hilltop, is this important.  Art Daughtry:  gave history noting Hilltop burned down and application is for reconstruction.  Part of the traffic is to have a secondary access for emergency access only.  If this is a thru road, this would help access this site. 

Mr. Sullivan:  under time constraints and need to do revisions to the plan.  Mr. Speciale:  distance between two cul de sacs is 15’-20’.  If you reduce cul de sacs, can have paver blocks for emergency access for this reason.   Frontage of lots would change, but lots would be in compliance.  Street would have to turn to hit existing street.  Mr. Omland:  there is a vertical issue, and is something that has to be hit.

Mr. Karkowsky opened it again to allow Ms. Leblanc to speak.

Ms. Deborah LeBlanc:  thinks the issue of Hilltop should be addressed.  Feels if this is approved, would get more increase traffic, and majority of staff would be coming by buses and public transportation.   This is conjecture per Mr. Karkowsky.  Mr. Omland:  presented alternative of connecting two cul de sacs with emergency access strip.  The residents would be more willing to look at this alternative as a feasible alternative.

Majority of the board members indicated road should go through.

Carried with notice preserved to April 10th, 2008 – time to act extended on record – consents accordingly. 

PMSP/F07-13 – MAROTTA – Block: 1, L: 11.57, 29 and 31.04 #2 Pennbrook Court – Notice Acceptable                   ACT BY:  5/15/08

Rescheduled to 3-27-08 with notice preserved in a motion made by: Tony Speciale   Seconded by: Larry Hines   Roll Call:  Unanimous



Meeting adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by: Russ Lipari

Seconded by: Art Daughtry

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

With explanation

With explanation

Last Updated ( Friday, 14 March 2008 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack