|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal
Building
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 2008
ROLL CALL
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
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
COMMITTEE REPORTS
None
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
PLANNING BUSINESS
Towaco Center Update on Ordinance
RESCHEDULED TO 3-13-08
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
RESCHEDULED TO 3-13-08
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.
WAIVERS
None
RESOLUTIONS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
None
MINUTES
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
INVOICES
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
LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
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
NEW BUSINESS
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’)
Present:
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
CONCEPTS
None
Meeting adjourned
unanimously in a Motion made by: Russ Lipari
Seconded by: Art
Daughtry
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. White
|
