Planning Board Minutes 3-27-08 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Mr. Maggio - present          Mr. Karkowsky - present  

Ms. Kull - present                 Mr. Daughtry - present

Ms. Nielson - absent            Mr. Visco - absent

Mr. Lipari – absent              Mr. Lewis – entrance noted

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

                                               Mr. Speciale (alt#1) – present

Also Present:

Michael Carroll, Esq.

Stan Omland, PE

Joe Burgis, Planner


Stated for record


Stated for record


Ladis Karkowksy indicated he understands that the issues previously raised by Mr. Virkler on the Rathburn Road subdivision continue to be a problem with water ponding and several other site issues.  He felt it is more a township engineer issue that should be addressed.  Mrs. White noted that Mr. Omland indicated that the developer indicated that he was changing road contractors, understands that all of the construction equipment is off the property.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated that concerns were raised that perhaps due to the economy, etc. the construction in this area may be delayed and felt that those site issues that were a problem should be corrected. 

Mrs. White indicated Mr. Barile, Township Engineer, did send an email to Mr. Nardone asking him when he was going to proceed with completion of the road improvements, etc.  If the Board wishes, per Stan Omland, he understands a new contractor was coming in, and although this may be a time constraint, he feels it doesn’t obviate improvements that may need to be corrected now on Rathbun Road.  If this is impacting citizens, he can be directed to coordinate resolution of the item with Township Engineer.  Mrs. White indicated she would discuss again with Mr. Barile. 

Mr. Omland reminded board that Mr. Virkler was going to submit an email to Mr. Barile highlighting the site issues that needed to be addressed.    It was felt that Mr. Barile, if he hadn’t already, should let Mr. Virkler know.           


Mrs. White indicated that the Lowe’s application has been filed before the Board of Adjustment for use variance.


Joint Planning Board & Board of Adjustment Meeting on 4/17/08 @ 7PM

Mrs. White indicated that a draft outline for this informal workshop meeting was sent out.  The meeting is intended to bring the review boards, its professionals and staff aware of the changes and processes on going within the Township at the Planning Board level and how we can better enhance the development within the community and working together.  It was thought that it would be a good idea to also extend an invite to those department heads and chairs that are involved in the township in land use process.  Mrs. White will send out the invite.  It will be advertised as open to the public as a workshop meeting, closed to public participation, but it is acknowledged that chairs and department heads are not excluded from participation in this informal meeting.   

Cancellation of April 10th Planning Board meeting

Due to quorum problems, the Board unanimously moved cancellation of this meeting.  Any business scheduled would be moved to the April 24th meeting night.

Draft Ordinance for Old Bloomfield Avenue – Jos. Burgis, AICP

Rescheduled to April 24, 2008

Towaco Ordinance

Mr. Burgis indicated that this ordinance this evening incorporates the minor adjustments discussed from the March 13th meeting.  He reviewed:  On page 2, he added provision that there will be no single occupancy of 20,000 sq. ft. of floor area or greater.  On same page, under (d), he made clear reference to the current zoning standards under the R27A zone.  On page 4, clarified that the impact study required at 20 units will be a function of the Panning Board and finally on Page 8, he added evergreen trees to the list on landscaping.  Only item discussed at last meeting not added was a request to increase height of trees up to a minimum of 10-12”.  He reviewed this with his landscape architect, and because a reference made was made to plant materials of 3” or greater, he indicated that this size caliber would require these trees to be at a 10-12’ at a minimum anyway.  This ordinance was already voted on favorably at the March 13th ordinance, and this final copy will be forwarded to the Township

(Note: Art Daughtry entered)


PMISC08-13 Wilmington Paper Corp – 20 Hook Mtn Rd. – B: 169, L: 2 – expansion of existing office by 4,500 SF for a total office space of 8,935 s.f. for paper recycling broker – 20 employees – 8am-5pm Mon-Fri (First Industrial)

Motion made to approve subject to use letter stipulations by

Tony Speciale; Seconded by: Gary Lewis; Roll call: Unanimous







Minutes of 3-13-08 - Deb Nielson, Russ Lipari, Art Maggio, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Ladis Karkowsky , Vic Canning

Motion to adopt made by:  Art Daughtry  

Seconded by: Larry Hines

Roll call vote:  Unanimous


            Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $337.50; $607.50

Burgis Assoc. - Trust for: $240, $120, $210, $420, $450

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $1,113.75 (K&S)

Motion to approve made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded by: Tony Speciale

Roll call vote: Unanimous




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

Motion to dismiss without prejudice made by:   Marie Kull

Seconded by: Larry Hines

Roll call vote: unanimous

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

Mrs. White noted that this legal notice was found deficient.  She indicated that the engineer’s report received reflects continued deficiencies, especially submission of a stormwater management plan and information to allow the Board professional to offer input on the requested site plan changes being requested.  As soon as the additional information is received, Mrs. White to give applicant a new calendar date to notice.  Applicant continues to be deemed incomplete. 


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


(Note:  Mr. Daughtry stepped down- within notice area)

Present:  David Brady, Esq.

Jeff Morris, PE – Boswell Engineering

Mr. Brady summarized:  Concept is such that application involves Phase V residential subdivision that was approved in 2003.  Property is located within the R120 zone.  As part of this Phase V approval, a lot was created at intersection of Boonton Avenue and Pennbrook.

Applicant originally came before board on concept basis for a zone change for a portion of lot which was zoned industrial in order to allow this subdivision to be heard at this level vs. Board of Adjustment involving a use variance.  This rezoning was proposed by Planning Board with the recommendation that the zoning be changed from industrial to residential R120 for lot 29.  This subdivision is to regularize these lots lines and create one new building lot.

The properties are subject to conservation easements.   Many conversations were held as to who has the authority to change these conservation easements.  It was decided that the Township Committee has to sign off on this as it relates to the Planning Board recommendation.  This entity is the only entity that can allow any change in previously approved conservation easement areas. 

Mr. Morris indicated that this subdivision will ask for the amendment of area, but if approved will add more conservation added on this subdivision better buffering Marotta Industries from residential areas.

The application requires slope exceptions required, but no variances are needed.  The new lot is disturbing slope that was created when Patrick Court was created.

Board professionals were sworn in.

Jeffrey Morris, PE sworn and credentials accepted.

A1 colorized exhibit called ‘colorized existing conditions’.  Currently, the Patrick Court subdivision in Phase 5 established two lots.  Mr. Morris reviewed the shape and topography of the lots created.  

A2 colorized exhibit – ‘Colorized proposed plat of subdivision’.  Layout of the subdivision reviewed from exhibit.  Instead of 11.57 being triangular, it will, if approved, be more of a conventional lot layout.  On lot 31.01, this is now a regular lot as well as lot 31.02 (matter of shifting lines).  Development pattern from prior approval is same.  As a result of Patrick Court, there are steep slopes on lot 11.57 which is being disturbed.  Lot 3l.01 had steep slope exceptions previously granted.  Applicant is requesting waivers for 31.02 for a small portion where driveway will be constructed and is a result of Patrick Court construction.

A3 – exhibit called ‘colorized version of sketch plat’ which was part of the original subdivision package.  This layout reviewed:  applicant discussed shifting of conservation easements.  As part of the subdivision applicant proposes to carve out ¾ of an acre, and instead is going to be able to offer 1.3 acres; encumbering 30’ more buffer from Marotta Scientific, as well as 31.01, so there is a net of .558 sq. ft. of area added as conservation easement.  This increases depth of conservation easement on Pennbrook Court, and pushes back the 30’ buffer area.   

Applicant asked if there were any qualitative differences as to environmental look?  Mr. Morris indicated that some of the areas had some structures on them on other properties, but the proposed easements along Marotta lands are much more heavily wooded. 

As to Mr. Burgis and Mr. Omland reports, Mr. Morris reviewed issues raised, particularly lot 31.02 as it relates to retaining wall.  This wall is not going to be built until plat plan/construction permit approval level.  Maximum limitation of steep slope limitation is what is shown on the plan.

As to seepage pits, until the size of the new home is proposed, cannot determine the exact size needed.  These lots are sold and developers offer no house plans so there is no way to determine size of pits until that level.  They will be developed as part of a building permit request. 

As to electric lights, as part of Phase 1 and Phase 5, there were electric installed on roadways.  Applicant feels this is adequate, and also offers no improvements on these streets.

Mr. Burgis report:  dedication has been made as part of filing of map for Phase 5 to the County of Morris.  As to installation of additional shade trees, it is heavily wooded along Pennbrook Road, but on Patrick, they went into the lot, and if the Planning Board wants shade trees on Patrick, the applicant will supply.  Agreed. 

On page 4, zoning schedule will be revised to address compliance with Mr. Burgis’ report.

Note in Mr. Omland’s report is that submission must be made to Morris County Planning.  Applicant will comply with obtaining all agency reports required.   

Mr. Lewis:  adjacent to Patrick Court, there was a lot of debris and trash in this area.  Perhaps all these lots are sold by applicant, but there is intolerable amount of insulation paper, debris, throughout this area.  This property should be cleaned up.    

Sworn – Allan Cohen – representative of Marotta:  indicated he did call various crews to clean up, and notified the residents to clean the debris up.    

Opened to public…

Art Daughtry – wife owns the property receiving notice.  As an elected official and board members, he wanted to remind the board that the conservation easement at times has become a problem.  Homes get built to back of building envelope, and before you know it, residents put in patios in this area. 

This area is also at a blind corner (sight triangle).  If you are coming from Kinnelon Avenue, the driveway showing is coming out right out at this location.  Perhaps the applicant would consider moving the driveway further down on Pennbrook vs. this lot’s configuration. 

Mr. Brady:  in cooperation, can clearly mark the conservation easements on the lot being created. 

As far as driveway, this will be handled also at the time of the building permit process, but he would look to see if they could push the driveway up further.

Mr. Omland:  As to the wetlands/conservation easement markings.  He has some experience with this in other communities, and is seeing more rural towns use 3’ high markers with a sign that indicates ‘conservation easement’ and you can get these n a color that isn’t bright. 

He indicated he can develop a standard detail to use in the future, relatively simple and fast, and this should stop a homeowner from intruding into this area.  He thought the Planning Board should make this a test case, and he will provide data and details.  Mr. Brady agreed. 

Mr. Lewis voiced concerns about those issues that are being left to building permit/plat plan process addressed in the future, especially as it relates to driveway. 

Mr. Omland indicated that you can specify a desirable distance off to west, indicating Omland Engineering has to approve this.  Mr. Omland indicated you have to cut slopes with driveway but feels you can wrap driveway around the septic system, and this would make it work.  Applicant consents to this condition.

Ms. White asked applicant to make sure these new deeds reflect the wording relative to the Marotta pollution issue and provides the notice requirements we required in prior subdivisions.  Mr. Brady agreed to put the necessary language previously approved by Planning Board in the deeds, and indicated the applicant will also comply with the Highlands requirements.

Mr. Canning:  What phase was this study in?  Mr. Cohen:  there are test wells required by DEP, explaining background. 

No further public

Motion to close to the public made by:  Larry Hines, seconded by Mr. Speciale – Roll call:   Unanimous’

Mr. Canning:  in conservation easement, if there is pollution, does original property owner take on liability if a clean up is needed.  If owner committed this pollution, would not want to see a new property owner responsible for it. 

Marie Kull:  Have any of the sites been cleaned up?  Mr. Cohen:  public water was provided and no wells were allowed.  This was done as part of DEP.

Gary Lewis:  Motion made to grant major and final subdivision approval, as well as exception for slope disturbance requested, noting that the conservation space is either the same or more, and that making three more conforming parcels outweighs minor disturbance of slope. Compliance with shade tree plantings along Patrick Court, wording in deeds on pollution notification, Highlands approval, compliance with all agency findings, compliance with County Planning Board and Morris County Soils; revision of plan to provide a note addressing the relocation of the driveway to enhance sight distance on corner lot subject; any other revisions required by approval reports to review and approval of Planning Board engineer; conservation markers in accordance with specifications provided by Mr. Omland marking conservation areas; recommendation to the TC as to reallocation of the previously approved conservation area as discussed as part of this subdivision; normal applicable conditions of subdivision approval. 

Marie Kull:  are we following this further on responsibility of pollution?  Mr. Canning:  what about the future, and the area of responsibility.  We are acknowledging that this area is an area that is never going to be developed, and would we want assurances that we are not a party to this and agree that it is their liability to clean up pollution.  Mr. Brady:  we are responsible.  There is no way this can be put in a resolution of subdivision approval, and that may invite a lawsuit.  Gary Lewis:  we cannot usurp state authority on this.  We can’t direct a subsurface clean up.  Mr. Karkowsky:  if something is found, Marotta is still responsible for clean up.  Michael Carroll:  anything we add is surplus, assuming even DEP fell apart, this is a trespass, and if this was to appear, there is a private right of action.  Mr. Carroll doesn’t have concerns on this, as long as notice is in deed.

Seconded:  Tony Speciale

Roll call:  Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Larry Hines, Marie Kull, Tony Speciale, Victor Canning, Ladis Karkowksy

(Note:  Mr. Daughtry returned to podium)

PMSP/FC00-25-07-16 PISANO (Brianna Estates) – 36 Horseneck Rd. – B: 125.05, L: 14 – subdivision w/variances – 4 lots – Notice Acceptable

                                                                                    ACT BY: 5/30/08

Present:  Stephen Schepis, Esq.

Angela and Russell Pisano, owners

Mr. Schepis summarized from 2001 (a 9 lot subdivision) off Horseneck, with no new lots off existing ROW; slopes were required, and detention basin in lower left hand side.  For various reasons, infrastructure costs, application withdrawn.  Brianna Estates came back with reduced lots with cul de sac off Horseneck, with 3 above private ROW and 3 with a cul de sac.  Again due to infrastructure costs and applicant withdrew application.

Property owner is now applicant proposing 4 lots, 2 on Horseneck and 2 off No Name ROW.  In lieu of creating a new roadway, applicant would endeavor to use existing infrastructure. 

Mr. Pisano sworn. 

Lived here for 25 years on lot 13 and this lot is not subject to subdivision.  Lot 14 is the proposed development parcel subject to subdivision filed.  This lot has frontage on Horseneck Road and access of the private ROW.  The ROW discussed.  Mr. Pisano indicated he has owned lot 14 for ten years, and owned Lot 13 since l984.  History of ROW in 1984 discussed.  There were previously 4 homes on the street, and across the street the applicant called Guira obtained a subdivision so there are now five homes.  Before Guira subdivision, it was a gravel driveway maintained by Mr. Pisano.

Mr. Guira’s lot is across from his homestead.  There was an existing home.  As part of that approval, the road was paved over gravel driveway.   There was an agreement that when this lot was subdivided, the two lots under Guira subdivision would share costs, and he entered into maintenance agreement on this road at this time.

The Easement agreement on subdivision also executed as required by town and is what is in affect.  The resolution of Guira marked as A1 and easement agreements for road marked as A2, both recorded May 14, 1998. If approved, applicant agreed to extend the same easement to new owners as to sharing and maintaining the expenses of maintenance of roadway. 

There are extensive conservation easements on the lot.  The large area in rear will be conservation easement.  Also would agree to deed restriction of no further subdivision on lot 14.  Also would give utility easement thru land and give the required agreement to easement.  Had a request of developer to extend municipal sewer lot up 50 ROW and terminate in cul de sac and will install.  This will require laterals being given for neighbors to tie into sewers.

Discussed ensued on conservation easement:  lot 14.02 is reflected as a triangular shaped conservation bisected by utility.  Could this triangular lot be connected to upper lot so that there isn’t a point.  There are no overlapping areas and points come together.  Discussion ensued on correcting this area, and the Planning Board decided that the applicant could work with the Board engineer on correcting this conservation area.    

Mr. Maggio:  noticed on Mr. Mazzaccaro’s report about the waiving of connection fees for proposed new lots, assume no waivers for existing homes?  Mr. Schepis:  none.  The laterals will be constructed but the homeowners will be responsible for their own individual fees.

M. Spillane, PE – sworn

Mr. Spillane reviewed the location and layout, size and top of the requested supervision.  Overall area of lot 14 is large (14 acres +) sloped to the east and possesses fairly steep slopes.  All of the area is heavily wooded.  Access is on both the private ROW and Horseneck Road.  Existing drainage pattern drains towards no name ROW.  Zoning is R27A and all lots will comply with zoning requirements.  Lots 14.01 thru lot 14.04 all exceed in bulk and defined area of ROW and all conform to dimensional ordinances of R27A.   No variances with respect to zoning ordinances requested by this applicant.

Design exceptions needed:  pools have to be in rear of the house and he located this on proposed lots to reflect they can do so and still comply with ordinance requirements.  Second issue is that the setback for lot has to have the side yard extended due to existing house height.  Will amend this and again will comply with side yard requirements. 

Main waiver is steep slopes.  Steep slope chart reviewed and is minimal about 2500 sq. ft. within the total tract of 14 acres.  Mr. Burgis doesn’t feel this to be significant, and with conservation easements provided as amended by board’s professionals think environmental concerns have been addressed. 

Driveway grades discussed:  on 3 of the lots, driveways are at 6% maximum.  One driveway is at 15% where 10% required.  To make it comply, applicant would have to raise house at least 6’ and this would result in more land disturbance.  The applicant was attempting to mitigate installation of retaining walls.

Lot 14.02 driveway exceeds more than 10% for 15% of total length due to grade.  No other way to address driveway grade issue. There is no better solution.  This slope is standard in other municipalities and to respond to this, he depicted a landing area at top and at bottom.  He indicated he reviewed the Traffic Safety Officer’s report which asked for sufficient turn around to halt need for backing out.  He feels by having turn-around on all four houses, there will be no adverse impact.

Reviewed installation of sewer lines: Mr. Spillane indicated applicant proposes to bring sewer line up Pine Brook to service two houses, and sewer will also be used for two houses on Horseneck.  Water main in easement will be installed by applicant.  As far as the meetings held with water and sewer as it relates to extending water lines, applicant has agreed to grant right of township to install infrastructure so that they can make a loop.  Municipal water is available to two lots on Horseneck Road.  If township doesn’t extend water in this area, applicant will install private wells.  Township is extending sewer lines down Pine Brook Road, and if this isn’t done, applicant has met with Board of Health who acknowledges that they can develop a septic system on the lots and will comply.

Applicant is proposing a turn around at end of Private Street.  There are also improvements on individual lots. Applicant indicated this site does not require adherence to state code since improvements since there is less than ¼ acre impervious.  Applicant proposes installation of a drywell system for each of the lots to contain all water generated from improvements.  Applicant plan proposes installation of a filter system and drywell to treat water in cul de sac.  Overall impact on neighbors will be less runoff than what exists now.  This is a private road and will be maintained as well as stormwater installed.  The township engineer requires a new filter that is acceptable for this subdivision and will provide any filter system, as well as cost maintenance for this facility.  Applicant agreed to find a system acceptable to both township and Planning Board engineer.

As to the deed overlap for 14.01, applicant is giving up the land in question.  Pisano will deed contested land over to lot 23.02.   A map will be filed to clear up this area.

Ladis Karkowsky:  will this be a privately owned basin?  Mr. Omland:  the Township if private is not maintaining it.  Concerns voiced:  There is already There is a 5 lot driveway entity, and not a homeowner’s association, but without a real cul de sac, talking about little management and potential impact to residents.  Mr. Omland indicated he was not concerned, and if there was a problem, he is sure we would hear this immediately; it would be policed and corrected. 

Mr. Lewis:  township engineer is asking for private ROW.   Mr. Omland:  indicated he wasn’t going to do a lot of engineering review and provide comments because first dealing with private vs. public road.   If we go with private and increase upper area to a bulb, this greatly reduced his concerns and he is comfortable that the stormwater issue can be managed.  Impact downstream is minimum.   Little impact for cul de sac if system is designed property.  This system would be minimum maintenance and maximize effectiveness.

Driveways are located in optimal locations for sight distance.  To lessen 15% grade, though, Mr. Omland asked if applicant could move driveway down to lessen impact if there is no sight distance issue.  He indicated this might also lessen sewer impact.  Mr. Spillane indicated the applicant has not studied sight distance further down.  Mr. Omland:  although he recognizes there is a flat area on the top of lot, if he can slide driveway to make this grade less than 15% this would be a better design, as long as there is no impact to adjacent neighbor and physical constraints on Horseneck can achieve same.

On stormwater, applicant acknowledges that there are more minor comments on stormwater management aspects of the land, and agreed to comply with all revisions required by Planning Board engineer. 

Applicant has presented a building envelope to indicate how homes can be built, and only one wall needs to be built, and this reduction in walls is a significant change.

Mr. Burgis indicated he has little problems with the steep slope issues, with each lot having less than 300-400 sq. ft. disturbance.  He did indicate though that on future revision the application has to correct his calculations and update tables to reflect proper controls.

Tree removal discussed:  some trees show as ‘retained’ where they will have to be removed.  Need confirmation on the precise number of trees to be removed. The applicant will be required to supply revisions to reflect correct number.

Gary Lewis:  asked about the overlapping driveway and desire to deed this property over, what does this do to setback line on this lot?  See Sheet 5 of 10 on submittal.  The setback line is clearer on sheet 3 of plan.  Setback line is from applicant’s proposed lot line.  No issues on this.    

Height of retaining walls on lot 14.02 and 3 are shown at 5’ on high point.  This is acceptable as to height since 6’ is allowed in side yards. 

Tony Speciale:  whether the road is private or public, you are bringing water main to cul de sac, will there be fire hydrants.  Mr. Spillane indicated difference between Pine Brook Road and fire hydrant is about 500’. He indicated it was agreed that the Township would install hydrants.  Mr. Schepis summarized his meetings with water and sewer, and what was agreed upon was that the applicant will give an easement so Township could move line on Horseneck Road.  The water line will be extended on Horseneck with hydrants at that time. 

Opened to public…

Frank Corvall, 32 Pine Brook Road – reviewed his location and deferred his concerns being addressed by the board’s professionals to safeguard any problems. His concern was the driveway and moving of it closer to his lot.  He wants that driveway away from his lot:  didn’t want vehicles, lights coming down and didn’t want runoff from paved area.  Asked who is the builder and will they be built all at the same time. 

Ladis Karkowksy:  there is 0 runoff, and drainage system is required to catch all of the waters on the property.  Stan Omland: The driveway is a concern:  either has board say 10% vs. 15% and moves it further away from this lot.  It will be perfected in a plan to ensure driveway stays as discussed this evening.  An applicant was asked if the driveway on this downside be curbed so no water can jump.  Applicant agreed.  This will be a condition of approval so that no water can come to your property. 

Mr. Corval:  The driveway is 120’ from property line to common property line.  There is a swing set in his corner of his property, if area is cleared, his swing set exposed.   Mr. Omland:  understands there were no accidents in past five years because there is a guard rail.  Removal of trees won’t add more cars to this area.  With trees gone, there is a possibility that cars will drive thru.   Will not remove any trees along driveway except for driveway, but if driveway is moved, then there will be trees removed closer to property.

Linda Hill – No Name Street –concerned about water issue.  Understand what was said, but don’t know if this happens.  Their home is down towards end of road, and she reminded board of photos previously submitted on prior application that reflected pictures that show water comes out of retaining walls.  As to the filtration system proposed, currently we are included in maintenance of road.  Will we be included in maintenance of filtration system, or are new homes only?  

Mr. Schepis:  have no authority to bind others, can only bind the properties that front on the property, and homeowners outside would not be required to contribute.  Everyone on this street will have sewers and this may help with groundwater. Ms. Hill noted concerns about the schedule of sewers in the area, and if they have to go into septic, these lots are uphill.  Perhaps septic will be a problem to their lot if sewers don’t go in.

As to responsibility of the road:  trucks, machinery, this will damage road.  To what degree of repair will builders be responsible to put it into good shape to town spec?  Perhaps board should consider a minimum amount of widening to 24’ to allow township to take this over and feels this is better for neighbors. 

Mr. Omland:  as to private road, we need to have a condition in resolution, indicating that if road is damaged, the entity is required to repair road to where it is currently at now  As to how this ROW should go, input was requested, and agencies asked for it to stay private which must be decided by Planning Board.  If it stays private, it is restored and repaired to existing condition and width. 

Gary Lewis:  on drainage, when we say all drainage on lot, we only deal with the areas disturbed not other areas which have existing sheet flow.   

Mr. Omland:  yes, the old design called for the cul de sac to be constructed with a dam with trenches, etc. to collect and bring to a drainage basin.  With reduced lot, there is no intervening dam, all that undisturbed areas will flow unabated.  We couldn’t ask them to dig a deep hole to accept water down.  Septic vs. well:  this board has no jurisdiction on this, but assured residents that any new septic are designed to the standards of our state. 

Ms. Hill:  her concern mentioned continues to be installation of the drywells.  When the new structure was constructed, they were supposed to put drywells in and there is a big problem today still with water coming shooting down thru the walls of the retaining walls landing on their property.  Doesn’t feel the drywell system installed isn’t working properly.  Make sure that this system installed is done correctly.  Understand all of the existing water.  Make sure there is some check and balance from additional houses.

Gary Silvano 23.02 Pine Brook Road – concerns with water.  Are we still entertaining thoughts of making this a public road?  Ladis Karkowsky:  recommendation was to keep this a private road.  Sewer hookup:  is it mandatory to hook up.  Mr. Schepis:  yes

Gary Lewis:  what is position on road?  Mr. Silvano:  now taking care of it privately.   Would prefer it was public road.  If it becomes a public road, ROW would be 50’ but pavement would be 24’.  He acknowledged appreciation to applicant correcting the property/boundary issue.

Mr. Omland:  asked for clarification as to who is involved in the existing driveway maintenance agreement?  Mr. Schepis:  the legal agreement:  in reality five equally share the maintenance.  Only written agreement to maintenance is A2 which board required, at which time Mr. Pisano agreed to 3 lots, Pisano, lot 13 and two lots of Guira (Pisano, Hill and Silvano are legally bound). 

Applicant asked if the amended legal document for maintenance going to be changed to recite 5 properties.  Mr. Schepis:  indicated he can combine lot 14 and will have two different written obligations with a third unwritten.  ROW will be maintained by all 5 on the road, and if any disagreement, the two new lots and Mr. Pisano would require providing maintenance.  Township can do it if there is failure at which time Montville can then assess the properties.

Resident …. Indicated on 2/19/08 he saw water in basement.  He never had water in basement. The water was coming up thru basement floor, and he had a 1 1//4” but it was water coming up thru the floor itself. 

Larry Stowe #3 Horseneck – wanted clarification the nature of this proposal that it is extensively different than before.  In the prior plans, there was a proposal for subdivision, now this is only subdivision plan and lots will be sold off as lots.  How are we sure that these stipulations will be adhered to?  Mr. Omland and Ms. White explained municipal review processes and zoning reviews for new construction. 

Motion made by Gary Lewis to close to public, seconded by Larry Hines.  Roll call: unanimous

Mr. Schepis:  one thing in Omland memo, wanted a waiver from the requirement of imposing a conservation restriction on lot 13 which lot is existing Pisano lot and not subject to this subdivision.  Discussion ensued.  This lot is not part of the subdivision.  Waiver from condition #7 of Mr. Omland’s report granted to eliminate this requirement from this subdivision.

Mr. Daughtry:  homeowner on Horseneck Road wants this driveway as shown to remain as is.  Can’t the applicant raise house?  Different ideas offered. 

What about maintenance agreements?  Concerns voiced with three different numbers, and which resident does a municipality go to?  Is there is an agreement that can be executed.

Private Road will be put back the same way, but if the water and sewer is involved in this new easement and/or this right of way area, and then who is responsible?  Water and sewer is in the road for some improvements all being built by applicant?  Mr. Schepis:  Mr. Pisano will run sewer line and Water line will be by another entity.  Applicant and engineer must share responsibility and have this agreement in place now.  Improvements extend on amount of improvement, it depends on what or how it will be done.  The applicant agrees they will cooperate to bring road back to pre-existing condition and establish the road the way it is now.  We have to make sure that the language in resolution is specific.  Maps cannot be filed until we have this clear.

Mr. Schepis:  with two new houses with aid of roadway, the maintenance agreement will go up to 7, so there won’t get additional costs.  If you have a landscaping to clean catch basin, there will be minimal costs.  Reach out and look at greeting other property owners into an agreement.

Mr. Daughtry:  if there is ever a time that there is leverage, this is the time.  He indicated that it looks like everyone is here as neighbors, to work something out now to ensure best interest of everyone.

Mr. Canning:  if the road when done, as part of the developer’s agreement, that the developer should take on total obligation as to when it is done.  This wouldn’t happen if he wasn’t subdividing.  What is ‘reasonable’ in cleaning catch basins?  Mr. Omland:  elaborated on needing to look at the final stormwater management.  He explained.  Mr. Canning:  should have in resolution.  Mr. Omland: one of the conditions of plans, maintenance plan, estimated costs and revisions to plan to run with maintenance agreement.  This will be perfected in writing.  No curbing in cul de sac should be constructed. 

Mr. Daughtry:  want to see some kind of agreement from residents.  Mr. Maggio agreed.  Mr. Hines:  wants to see what will happen.  Mr. Schepis:  would execute same agreement, and include these new lots as well as Mr. Pisano into the bound maintenance agreement.  LaScala property not part of this, nor is the one other house on corner of Pine Brook Road that access to Pine Brook Road access.  Gary Lewis:  believe that the project and future owner of this house at 14.02 would be served better if he moved driveway somewhat more easterly.  If we moved it 50’ not even half the distance can achieve a lower slope.  

Mr. Lewis moved that we grant preliminary and major final subdivision subject to the conservation easements, the signs marking conservation easement areas, that this remain a private road, that the driveway for proposed lot 14.02 be relocated to better achieve driveway grades safe sight distance not to exceed 50’ from where it is located now further south east, compliance with all agency findings, except for the wavier from article No. 7 of the Omland Report requesting Pisano to deed conservation easement since it is not part of this subdivision, compliance with all plat plan/lot grading details as testified to this evening; compliance with revision of the plans to respond to all testimony and reports issued; elimination of curbing in cul de sac area, provide the required stormwater management plan revisions to plan, pricing costs and the required maintenance manual plan, maintenance agreement; review and approval of an agreement on repair to ROW road; submission of a Developer’s Agreement that clearly reflects the staging and equipment on site (reference issues with residents on Rathburn Road); waiving of fees should also be noted in the DA for the new lots only; consideration for safety related issues to name the No Name Street.  Mr. Speciale suggested Flynn in view of the fireman who volunteered in this area.  Mr. Speciale elaborated.  Waiver of installation of sidewalks and curbing; granting of slope deviations as requested and marking of all trees to ensure only those trees incidental to development of subdivision are removed.

Seconded:  Tony Speciale

Roll call:  Marie Kull, Gary Lewis, Art Maggiko, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Vic Canning & Ladis Karkowsky – Yes



Meeting adjourned unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

With explanation

With explanation

With explanation

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 29 April 2008 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack