MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road,
Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2008
Mr. Maggio - present Mr.
Karkowsky - present
Ms. Kull - absent Mr. Daughtry
Ms. Nielson - present Mr. Visco – present
Mr. Lipari – present Mr. Lewis - present
Mr. Hines - present Mr.
Canning (alt#2) – entrance noted
Speciale (alt#1) – present
Joe Burgis, AICP
Towaco Center Ordinance
Mr. Burgis summarized the final draft ordinance
explaining that this ordinance addresses the Master Plan adopted January 24,
2008. He reviewed the various changes
made on the master plan, the reduction of the area involved in the study, indicating
the reduced area amounts to about 2.3 acres.
He indicated that the plan contemplates 52,000 sq. of non residential
and no more than 45 dwelling units in conjunction with this.
The ordinance received is in the same format as
previously submitted, highlighting changes that occurred. One of the concerns that came up was with respect
to single family houses on Waughaw Road and the manner in which they are
treated. He indicated he inserted a
section that indicates all of these residential units if this ordinance is
adopted shall be permitted to put in addition/expansion under existing zoning
assuring that these residents are not adversely affected.
confirming then this will not affect existing residents. Mr. Burgis indicated they will be able to
make additions in accordance with residential zone requirements, which is the
underlying zone that exists at this time.
Gary Lewis asked for clarification on this section. Mr. Burgis indicated that the applicable
zone districts allows for slightly relaxed coverage and setback
requirements. There are approximately seven
residences existing on Waughaw Road. Mr.
Lewis voiced concerns on having reconstruction of a home that would not fit
within the existing neighborhood, and that under this scenario, they could
build the house larger than their neighbors.
Mr. Burgis indicated that they would be subject to CWR coverage
regulations. Gary Lewis voiced concerns
about ordinance being sustainable, and that the house being built would be out
of character. Mr. Burgis indicated the new construction would be regulated by
CWR coverage which is more regulatory control, but most significant is that
they could build closer to street. Deb
Nielson: would it be better to change
the wording to indicated current R27A zone.
Mr. Burgis will clarify wording to indicate subject to current R27A
(Note: Vic Canning entered)
Second change relates to character along
Jacksonville, which was originally at 20’ to street line. In this ordinance, he changed it to 40’
minimum amending the zoning table.
There is no maximum setback for this section.
The other change is that the maximum impervious
coverage is consistent with CWR critical water resource regulations which shall
be 40% in prime and 50% in restricted same as today.
Buffers were increased to 200’ in TC1. He also added specific reference to
stormwater management indicating all development must meet adopted stormwater
regulations; that all developments shall meet HPRC regulations; added a
provision that after 20 Dwelling Units are built, there shall be a study
undertaken to indicate impact and determine if there should be an adjustment to
include some form of age restricted impact to ensure no impact to school. Added additional provisions relative to
landscaping and buffering to enhance and also added water conservation
practices. Changed provisions to
indicate recycling provisions are pursuant to newly adopted ordinance.
Gary Lewis asked as to section 3, development
standards on page 4 of draft, although he understands rationale as to paragraphs
c and f, any development would have to comply with these standards anyway, why
would we add? Mr. Burgis: these concerns were raised at hearing of
master plan and because of these concerns; he added this extra wording to
reiterate requirements of current ordinances.
Gary Lewis asked for clarification that if a new ordinance is adopted in
the future, that a developer has to rely on the current ordinance, and not rely
on one that is referenced in this ordinance?
Mr. Burgis: all developments
must conform to ‘existing’ meaning anything in place at the time a development
application is made, but to make sure there is no confusion on this issue, he
has no problem with striking the wording ‘existing’.
School Impact and the requirement of a study at 20
dwelling units. Mr. Lewis asked if this
is a study/assessment the Planning Board will be making? Is this study/assessment a function of the
Planning Board? Mr. Burgis indicated he
is confident that there will not be a significant impact, but this language
gives flexibility to the township.
Typically these studies are done by the Planning Board. Discussion ensued as to perhaps adding
additional wording that specifies the function being that of the Planning Board
and defining the purpose: if there is
an impact, the study would involve the imposition of the age restricted
component to address remaining housing.
Larry Hines indicated he had no paragraph C, no
problem with the language since whatever ordinance is in existence at time of
permit process/development process, the developer would be subject to those
regulations. Mr. Lewis said whatever
language is the best language to ensure this should be given by the Township
Attorney. Ms. Nielson indicated the Township
Attorney always reviews proposed ordinance and will deal with any language
change and/or will approve wording as part of his review.
There is a standard section in zoning that indicates
any ordinance in affect supersedes other ordinances. Mr. Burgis will take the word ‘existing’ out on this area to make
it further clearer.
Opened to public.
Mr. Karkowsky indicated that input will be taken on this ordinance only.
Ms. Truscha Quatrone – 4 Majorca
Sec. D, page 4 – 10,000 retail in ordinance is
worded, and she indicated they she would not like to see a food market in this
corridor, requesting that there shall be no food market or any building of more
than 10,000 sq. ft. permitted in the zone.
Catherine Vince – Towaco – as to education on Page 4
– find the numbers difficult since history indicated that when the townhouses were
going in, the developer indicated that they wouldn’t impact school system, and
yet there was an impact. She discussed
prior school studies and occupancy numbers, noting Cedar Hill School has 3
sections and they are just about filled and school is close to capacity.
Ms. Vince continued indicating that developers said they
wouldn’t impact schools. Asked: is this study mentioned in ordinance, is it a
function of Planning Board or Dept. of Education to conduct an educational
study. Joe Burgis: those entities can under state MLUL can
provide a study. When a Planning Board
is doing community facilities assessment, they are obligated to do this. The Board of Ed is also entitled to do
Ms. Vince found this document better, but felt there
should be a community and Planning Board subcommittee, and going back in past
minutes, feels their input wasn’t wanted and they haven’t had a chance to voice
concerns. Ladis Karkowsky: indicated that the public’s concerns and
comments were taken into consideration.
As far as the education study, there was a study conducted that responds
to impact as to what the impact would be of these developments and what Mr.
Burgis says had been found reliable.
Ms. Vince indicated there were 3 studies conducted,
and Board of Ed went with what they wanted. She felt a committee of citizens and Planning Board is
needed. She indicated she lived in
Bergen County, and would have stayed there since she is now concerned with over
building, tax rate and feels this area cannot support it. It needs to be scaled down.
Russ Lipari indicated he was also aware of
additional studies conducted with water and sewer, discussing it recently with Mr.
Mazzaccaro, and said report agrees with our planner.
Brook Lane – page 6 of the ordinance, section c, specifically concerned
about the properties on Indian Hill Road and Brook Lane as it relates to
buffers, more specific description should be put in ordinance a requirement of
a 6’ to 8’ berm and consider a 10’ to 12’ evergreen trees, and in reviewing
page 8, there isn’t an evergreen tree listed on it. She would like to see Planning Board put in additional wording
requiring a 6 to 8’ berm with 10’ to 12’ evergreens to put a higher buffer blockade
in, and include evergreen trees on page. 8.
Gary Lewis indicated that the topo of property goes
gradually up, and thought that 6’ is high, mentioning that there is a buffer
along Changebridge that is lower and works well. Deb Nielson indicates that there is no site plan filed, and that
the Board can fine tune this at time of development filings. She indicated that there should be more
language on Page 8 since this area does not have evergreens reflected. Ms. Nielson continued with that history of
the board’s review indicating that this board doesn’t settle for anything less
than 8-10’ height, and also in addition to this, requires a certain amount of
spacing and under plantings, depending of species. She indicated that the Board has attempted to address every nuance
in ordinance and this particular board has been more than diligent in requiring
substantial landscaping in all of their properties. She asked Mr. Burgis to review this section; including looking at
the 3” caliber, indicating it might be prudent to add at least 8’ height
requirements. She also noted to
residents that often time we conduct site inspections after construction to
ensure adequate buffer exists. Ms.
Nielson indicated the ordinance should incorporate additional wording and put
in more generalized wording to allow for site inspection.
thanked Planning Board for adding school impact study to ordinance
draft, and think it is a good idea. One
comment is that there is no timing on study?
How is this done? Mr. Burgis
explained that there has to be some flexibility as to how many one developer
might submit for, so what is contemplated is that when this initial application
is made; look at 2-3 years from then for studies. The studies are made 2-3 years after the fact and it then should
be when there is a constant fluid movement,
He thought picking a time maybe 2-3 years from CO’s would be usual.
if 5 children is all that is supposed to come from this development, but
what if more than 5 children go to school, are they required to stop
building. The Planning Board should add
some time element into this. Add 2 years
after last CO is issued? Russ
Lipari: it could be 5 years before
something is built. Putting in a number
might be a double edge sword. Russ
Lipari: he indicated that it sometimes
takes time in developing an area, mentioning Nagel, down on Alpine Road. Here there are about 27 homes, and this
subdivision will affect schools. He
indicated he appreciate concerns noting the Planning Board has these same
concerns, but homes will continue to be built. As to the question of putting a
Moratorium in, the State statutes prohibit this per Joe Burgis.
Libby Manicone – what of traffic study and what is
done to calm the traffic in this area, and moving safely? What is going to happen? Mr. Karkowsky: County conducted a traffic study, recommended lowering speed
limit, adding speed bumps, and a traffic light is going in. Gary Lewis:
don’t think there will be a bigger help than the light in this
area. Deb Nielson: traffic light includes light at Park Avenue
and timing will be controlled to ease flow in this area. This is being worked on at County level, as
well as lowering speed limit.
Alex Kuran 13 Lenape Drive – totally in support of
development. Is there a reason why it
can’t be age restricted to lower school concerns. This may be a way to keep impact off school. Understands the Planning Board is doing a
study for aged restricted housing, which may not be positive here, but they are
looking at the entire township; this study being the focus of the Planning
Board. Indicated there are families who
have been in town and when it was a town of farmers, they needed banks and gas
stations, but we are past farms and are at homes, and we need to cater to the
homeowner, and to drive to neighboring homes to do daily tasks, to have coffee,
to have ice crème and not looking for duplex movie and looking for family
Kathleen Tortorella - 3 Nathan drive – concerns
seem to be more relative to impact on school, why allow 45 is more on concern
to school so study makes sense, why 45 units, and why not limit units now and
see how it goes. Ladis Karkowsky: we attempted this but had to deal with state
Motion made by:
to close to public made by: Gary Lewis
asked Mr. Burgis about some type of control being put in place to
reflect our position not to have supermarkets, on page 2, can we include in
number 6. Can we prohibit supermarket
and put in a certain criteria. Mr.
Burgis indicated you have to put in certain wording, noting that you now see CVS
and Quick Chek selling food products.
He doesn’t feel this type of site will sustain that type of
activity. Discussion ensued on
limitation and best wording. Mr.
Karkowsky noted there are certain site design details that are already in there. Mr. Burgis felt there were adequate regulations
in place to preclude this type of activity feeling there is enough protection. Discussion ensued with concerns being voiced
that the intent of this ordinance is not to have one user for entire site. Theme is to provide a destination to do
Mr. Lewis felt perhaps we should lock in a number,
ultimately board decided to restrict it to a 20,000 sq. ft. area, and ordinance
will be amended to reflect same. With
that, motion made by Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Lipari to favorably recommend this
ordinance as amended this evening to Township Committee noting he feels this is
a good plan and master plan and hope that we can entice a developer in terms of
build out and this area will be an asset to the community. Roll call:
John Visco, Larry Hines, Art Maggio, Gary Lewis, Russ Lipari, Victor
Canning , Tony Speciale and Mr. Karkowsky – Yes; Ms. Nielson – endorse
ordinances and since she will vote at Township Committee level abstains this
evening on vote. Mr. KITC level and abstain
Mr. Karkowsky thanked the board, public and Mr. Burgis
for appeasing most all of concerns of residents.
5 min. recess.
This cost proposal was referred to the Planning
Board subcommittee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 18th at
with Planning Board/BoA to discuss common development goals\
Mrs. White asked the Planning Board about meeting
with BOA in view of the various planning studies and changes we are looking to
promote. Planning Board thought it a
good idea and asked her to discuss with BOA and set a date for this workshop
– Pine Brook Realty, 12 Rt. 46, B: 160, L: 4 –rezoning request for FAR%
increase – Old Bloomfield Ave – applicant withdrew this request for rezoning on
this parcel. Board planner had already
reviewed entire corridor for township.
Verbal report presented.
Burgis indicated he reviewed this corridor and mapped out building coverage
factors and impervious factors for existing businesses. Impervious coverage: none of the lots meet present zoning
code. Most all are over 75%. Zoning coverage discussed.
Building lot coverage permits 20% and 11 comply with this requirement
and 3 of the others are only over 20% but average is only over a little as to
building coverage factors. Many of the
lots are as low (5 or 6) less than 10%.
This makes them right for potential redevelopment. He feels we can deal with increasing the impervious
coverage as discussed, and give slight increase to building lot coverage in an
effort to encourage redevelopment, and these ties in with FAR. 25% permitted. These two other factors under consideration,
he thinks it would be inappropriate to do slight increase in an FAR. Don’t
think a dramatic increase is warranted.
Height limitation is 2 stories.
Gary Lewis: if you have a two
story limitation and you do anything at all to the building coverage, you are
limited by stories and building coverage per Gary Lewis. Given small size, FAR represents a
significant problem with redevelopment.
FAR is generally a good call to control non-residential growth on a
piece of property. If you impose proper
impervious and building coverage, you can achieve what you want to achieve and
make sure certain applications stay at Planning Board. If we allow a slight increase in bulk
controls and eliminated FAR we would be incentive to combine small lots into a
practical development. On this
corridor, this is what we should be looking at. There are no large lots here.
Not an advocate of FAR in this area.
Maggio: are some applicant’s coming
forward? Thinks you can change impervious
to 75%, Building Lot coverage at around 30% and eliminate the FAR%. Gary Lewis:
the subject site if developed is below 80% with a conforming stormwater
plan, you end up with a better contributing site, and there is a net benefit. Feels we should go forward with a proposed
Speciale: the average for impervious in
this area is 79.7 percent, why not round it up to 80%. When you look at width and you want
landscaping/green space, you need to clean it up. Is 75% enough? Mr. Burgis:
will fool around with numbers more.
Deb Nielson: be specific that it
is a Rt. 46 corridor, and we do not want to see this in other areas of
community. Protections need to be in
place. Mr. Burgis: In the Whereas clause, you must distinguish
this area from other areas. Mr.
Cannio: what about using an overlay
zone. Ms. Nielson: asked Mr. Burgis to create draft ordinance
for next meeting.
Changebridge Rezoning Study
(Shoppes @ Montville @ Kramer) – rescheduled
to April 10, 2008
re: Billboards/Sign – referred from Township Committee - rescheduled to April 10, 2008
PMISC08-02 Qzina Specialty
Food – 20
Hook Mtn Rd. Unit 10 – B; 169, L: 2 –
(2,042 s.f.)/warehouse (24,626 s.f.) distribution of chocolate & pastry
ingredients – employees 11 – hours of operation 8am-5pm Mon-
– 3 vehicles to be parked overnight (12’ cargo van; 12’ sprint van’ 14’ box
– signage to be in compliance with approved theme (sublease of Winebow - First
Industrial) – Rescheduled to subcommittee
meeting of 3/18/08 @ 8:30AM
PMISC08-08 Angan Indian
Restaurant & Catering – 101 Rt. 46 Unit 121 –
181, L: 1 – restaurant 670 s.f. - 3 employees – hours of operation 6am to 11pm
– signage to be in compliance with approved theme –previous use: Two Brother’s Pizzeria
- 4 tables permitted (Rensellear)
Present: Kinnari Patel
Indicated this is mostly a catering and take out business and they will only
have the four tables previously approved.
This site approved subject to compliance with all agency approvals, use
letter and signage theme. Motion made
by: John Visco Seconded by Art Maggio
Physical Therapy – 2 Changebridge Rd. – B: 44, L: 1 –
4,086 s.f. physical therapy office – 3
employees – hours of operation 7:45am
Mon-Fri (occasional weekends) – signage to per approved theme – previous use
physical therapy/sport medicine/podiatrist (Anton Co)
Present: Dr. Benjamin
hours of operation will be Monday Wednesday & Friday
subject to compliance with agency findings, use letter, sign theme made
by: Larry Hines Seconded by Tony Speciale
PMISC08-11 Mortgage Pricing
115 Main Rd – B: 51, L: 28 – 1,000 s.f. sales office – 6 employees – hours of
operation 8am-6pm M-F – black lettering on white background same as existing
tenant signs on existing sign and lettering on canopy over door - sublease from
Servo Systems (Apple Partners)
subject to compliance with agency findings, use letter, sign theme made
by: Russ Lipari Seconded by Larry Hines
PMISC08-10 Marra’s of
263 Changebridge Rd. – B: 149.04, L: 6 – 1,126 s.f. deli/catering – 4 employees
– hours of operation 9am-7pm Mon-Fri; 9am-4pm Sat; 10am-2pm Sun – wall sign to
be in compliance with approved theme black lettering on white background
indirect lit – previous use: Montville Meats (Changebridge Plaza)
½ of the space - Approved subject to compliance with agency findings, use
letter, sign theme made by: Gary
Lewis Seconded by Tony Speciale; Roll
re: proposed new monument sign 263 Changebridge Rd. – B: 149.04, L: 6
Changebridge Plaza – Rescheduled to
subcommittee meeting of 3/18/08
PMSP/F07-12 K & S at
49 Old Lane – B: 39.07, L: 2 – 6 Single Family Lots - 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).
made by: Deb Nielson
FHN Cuisine (Inn at Montville) - 167 & 161 Main Rd. - B:
51, L: 47 & 43 – amended site plan – Approved 2/28/08 – Eligible: Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale
(alt #1) & Ladis Karkowsky
Motion made by: Larry
Seconded Art Maggio
– ACKER - 174 Pine Brook Road – Approval to waive sidewalks
and road widening previously approved Eligible: Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale
(alt #1) & Ladis Karkowsky
Motion made by: Art
Seconded Larry Hines
to Highlands from Planning Board – Mrs. White indicated that this letter
opposing the adoption of the mapping was sent to the Highlands and legislators,
and that the Township Committee would be adopting a resolution also opposing
of 2/28/07 – Eligible: Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John
Visco, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale
(alt #1) & Ladis Karkowsky
Motion made by: Larry Hines
Associates – O/E for: $150, $120, $480, $30, $2,130.00, $540, and 2007 billings
for: $8,344.00, $5,192.50; Trust for:
$120, $60, $60, $240, $150, $730, $770
Engineering – O/E for: $270, $641.25; Trust for: $540, $281.25, $337.50, $67.50,
Motion made by: Russ Lipari
– BOILING SPRINGS SAVINGS BANK – Site Plan & variance application – 446 &
448 Rt. 202, Lots 78.01 & 78.02, B: 39.11 – Notice Acceptable & carried
from 1/10/08; Eligible: Roll call:
Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Russ Lipari,
Marie Kull, Art Maggio, John Visco, Gary Lewis (Mr. Speciale and Mr. Canning )
Present: Steven Schepis, Esq.
revisions to previously submitted plan
Morris, PE – previously sworn reviewed sheet 5 of submitted plan which is the
Landscape plan which was colored; marked in as A1 3-13-08 – colorized site plan exhibit
Professionals sworn in by Michael Carroll
Morris summarized that he eliminated parking spaces along Main Road, adding a
full width rain garden & low landscaping.
Rain garden’s function is that prior to infiltration it purifies water
and runoff from parking lot; it removes 80% of solids in water prior to going
to detention. The Board expects to see
small shrubs, annual flowering plants.
In addition, new design aids circulation in site by relocating the building
closer to Main Road, and also increased plantings that are realistic plantings
that should flourish in this area. He
noted they added parking spaces along northerly side of building and widened
out the driveway by rear. Had 21 spaces
in bank site, redesign resulted with spaces being reduced to15. Applicant’s traffic engineer indicated 12 spaces
were sufficient. General parking is
along east side and this design function same way. There is no parking on Main Road. As a result of site plan, impervious coverage was brought down
from 86% to 75%. The impervious
coverage has increased on Red Barn Plaza since they are adding 6 parking to Red
Barn. Impervious ends up at 56%. The two sites combined would be at 59%.
proposed: Red Barn property has
junipers and Pines along periphery and will re-enforce that, adding more deciduous
trees and lower shrubs. At entrances there
is fully mature landscaping and applicant will maintain these. In blank spots, they will fill in with blank
Lighting: hearing concerns, added Towaco fixtures two
more to the parking lot off Main Road, and added some internally on site. Plan reflects two Towaco fixtures inside
lot. On site itself there are 10
existing fixtures which are getting aged and these will be replaced with a
light type fixture with a more illuminated quantity. Along Rt. 202, the applicant proposed 4 Towaco lighting
fixtures. The lighting complies with wattage
requirements and internal fixtures will be 150 watts and Towaco will be 100
located totally with applicant’s property.
proposes stamped concrete/decorative with barrier free ramps. Traffic barrier discussed: existing pattern on Red Barn will maintain
as is, go on easterly, go into bank can park and walk or come in to bank, park
on right or left near bank and exit the same way. Drive thru also.
Directional signage is two: one
is that there no right turn at exit with a stop sign and a do not enter sign at
the entrance to drive thru on south side of building.
sign exists, located close to ROW line at entrance to Red Barn. Existing sign displayed.
sign reviewed. Mr. Burgis indicated
that he preferred Bergen Sign company signage.
The Bergen Sign Company plans show that the height and size of the
proposed freestanding sign has been reduced slightly. The overall height previously was 13’5 and is now proposed at
10’5. The main sign panel beneath the
decorative top has been reduced from 80 sq. ft. to 65 sq. ft. This is in comparison to the existing
freestanding sign’s area of 40.5 sq. ft.
The decorative top has also been reduced in size slightly from
approximately 22 sq. ft. to 20 sq. ft. and its content changed to include Red
Barn Plaza name. Variances are required
for proposing a freestanding sign where none are permitted, for exceeding the
maximum permitted sign area and for exceeding the maximum permitted sign
height. Square footage of proposed sign
is 80 sq. ft. Deb Nielson:
existing sign is 108” wide, and new sign is 140”. Applicant indicated he is asking for 10’5”
height. Details reflect the actual sign
area and it doesn’t include peak, etc. Plan
proposed does increase the square footage of sign area. Sign is being placed in different
location. Current sign was located more
towards inland area. New sign will be
5’ off ROW and placed further west into the landscaping. It is internally lit. Two directional signs permitted, three
requested. Locations discussed. Ordinance permits 4 sq. ft.
Engineering: No remaining engineering comments exist.
Planner: Mr. Burgis indicated the applicant addressed
his issue except for upper handicap parking space near Red Barn, which building
does it serve? It serves Red Barn and
applicant is adding two more on this site noted Mr. Morris. .
Lewis: as to site triangle, and
placement of sign, ensure there is not a sight obstruction. Applicant indicated Sign is not obstruction
traffic in – this is an entrance only.
Schepis indicated that the applicant will comply with all agency reports as
indicated in his November 28th letter to Board. As HPRC, applicant never received any
comments and they are not located in historic district.
made by: Opened to public made by Russ
Lipari, seconded by Art Maggio; hearing none, closed to public in a Motion made
by: Russ Lipari, seconded by Art Maggio
discussion ensued: Ms. Nielson thought
this a good site plan, noting the paver sidewalk along front, but thought that
the applicant might want to meander and make the sidewalk more serpentine, and
also around building in front is concrete pavers. Would like to use this site as a show piece, and have been trying
to do creative things around town. This
is a prime example of the philosophy of working together to create a good
Karkowksy noted he appreciated the applicant working with our board professionals
resulting in targeting issues that needed to be addressed before coming to the
Planning Board. This is a project we
would like future applicants to be cognizant of.
Schepis summarized indicated that they will also need the additional sign
variance for maximum building max. Height on wall for letters is at 11 or 12’
with 2’ font. Variance for freestanding
sign approved. One variance is on tower
part of building says Boiling Springs and is raised letters. Boiling Springs
Savings Bank, channel letters, black; also same on rear of building. Discussion ensued as to whether the letters
should be larger than code, understanding the need for the sign letters being
mounted at 11’ vs required 8’ or less.
Applicant indicated that they would comply with size of size required
per code on front. Mr. Burgis: rationale is there supporting their needs,
but need testimony and additional details.
Mr. Schepis: is it fair to say
that the height allowed is 8’ and proposed 11’ and 12’. The two dimensions discussed.
Reida sworn – Architect
plans reviewed. He is the design consultant
with sign. Letter height is in conformance
with ordinance standards. The need for
the location of the sign letters on façade discussed. Will comply with font size; board had no objection to granting
height requested. Discussed code
requirement of 18” for letter meeting code, noting they are asking for building
height only for location of lettering.
No objection voiced.
made by: Russ Lipari to grant
preliminary & final site plan with all variances requested granted,
compliance with all agency reports, except for waiving of HPRC, bonding if
required, compliance with all testimony of record, Recorded shared parking
agreement; Morris County Planning Board, Soils, normal applicable provisions of
site plan approval. Seconded Larry
Hines Roll call: Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, John Visco,
Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale and Vic Canning
adjourned unanimously in a motion by Art Maggio, Seconded by Larry Hines
Linda M. White