PB Minutes 3-13-08 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2008

ROLL CALL

Mr. Maggio - present                                 Mr. Karkowsky - present  

Ms. Kull - absent                                       Mr. Daughtry - absent

Ms. Nielson - present                                 Mr. Visco – present

Mr. Lipari – present                                   Mr. Lewis - present

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

                                                                                                Mr. Speciale (alt#1) – present

Also present
Joe Burgis, AICP

Michael Carroll, Esq.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

None

PLANNING BUSINESS

Towaco Center Ordinance Discussion

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.

Ladis Karkowsky:  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 ordinance relations.

(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 study. 

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.

Michele Caron:  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. 

Cheryl Trent:  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.

Ms. Trent:  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 operation. 

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 requirements.

Motion made by:  to close to public made by: Gary Lewis

Seconded:  John Visco

Roll call:  Unanimous

Deb Nielson:  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 several things. 

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.

Master Plan/Re-examination Proposal

This cost proposal was referred to the Planning Board subcommittee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 18th at 8:30AM.

Meeting 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 meeting forum. 

PGDP07-15 – 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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 ordinance change.

Tony 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

Ordinance re: Billboards/Sign – referred from Township Committee - rescheduled to April 10, 2008

               

WAIVERS

PMISC08-02 Qzina Specialty Food – 20 Hook Mtn Rd. Unit 10 – B; 169, L: 2 –

Office (2,042 s.f.)/warehouse (24,626 s.f.) distribution of chocolate & pastry

Products/baking ingredients – employees 11 – hours of operation 8am-5pm Mon-

Fri – 3 vehicles to be parked overnight (12’ cargo van; 12’ sprint van’ 14’ box

truck) – 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 –

B: 181, L: 1 – restaurant 670 s.f. - 3 employees – hours of operation 6am to 11pm

Mon-Sun – 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

PMISC08-09 Montville Physical Therapy – 2 Changebridge Rd. – B: 44, L: 1 –

 4,086 s.f. physical therapy office – 3 employees – hours of operation 7:45am

9pm Mon-Fri (occasional weekends) – signage to per approved theme – previous use physical therapy/sport medicine/podiatrist (Anton Co)      

Present:  Dr. Benjamin

Explained hours of operation will be Monday Wednesday & Friday

Approved subject to compliance with agency findings, use letter, sign theme made by:  Larry Hines   Seconded by Tony Speciale

Roll call unanimous

PMISC08-11 Mortgage Pricing Systems – 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)

Approved subject to compliance with agency findings, use letter, sign theme made by:  Russ Lipari   Seconded by Larry Hines

Roll call unanimous

PMISC08-10 Marra’s of Montville – 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)

Kim Buckholz, Architect

Taking ½ of the space - Approved subject to compliance with agency findings, use letter, sign theme made by:  Gary Lewis   Seconded by Tony Speciale; Roll call unanimous

Discussion re: proposed new monument sign 263 Changebridge Rd. – B: 149.04, L: 6 Changebridge Plaza – Rescheduled to subcommittee meeting of 3/18/08

RESOLUTIONS

PMSP/F07-12 K & S at MONTVILLE – 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).

Motion made by:  Deb Nielson

Seconded Larry Hines

Roll Call:  Unanimous

PSPF04-05-07-20 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 Hines

Seconded Art Maggio  

Roll Call:  Unanimous

PMN03-12 – 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 Maggio

Seconded Larry Hines

Roll Call:  Unanimous

                                                                               

CORRESPONDENCE

Letter 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 this mapping. 

MINUTES

Minutes 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

Seconded by:  John Visco

Roll Call:  unanimous

INVOICES

Burgis 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

Omland Engineering – O/E for: $270, $641.25; Trust for: $540, $281.25, $337.50, $67.50, $708.75, $202.50

Motion made by:  Russ Lipari

Seconded:  Tony Speciale  

Roll Call:  Unanimous

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

None

               

OLD BUSINESS

PSPP/FC07-09 – BOILING SPRINGS SAVINGS BANK – Site Plan & variance application – 446 & 448 Rt. 202, Lots 78.01 & 78.02, B: 39.11 – Notice Acceptable & carried from 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 )                                                                                                       ACT BY:  2/15/08

Present:  Steven Schepis, Esq.

Reviewed revisions to previously submitted plan

Mr. 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

Board Professionals sworn in by Michael Carroll

Mr. 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%.

Landscaping 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 shrubs.

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.    

Applicant 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. 

Freestanding sign exists, located close to ROW line at entrance to Red Barn.  Existing sign displayed.

Old 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.  . 

Gary 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. 

Mr. 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.   

Motion 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

Board 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 plan. 

Ladis 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. 

Mr. 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.

Glen Reida sworn – Architect

Architectural 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. 

Motion 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

NEW BUSINESS

None

CONCEPTS

None

Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion by Art Maggio, Seconded by Larry Hines

Respectfully submitted,


Linda M. White

Absent with Explanation

Absent with Explanation

 
Last Updated ( Friday, 28 March 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack