TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road,
Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 2008
No New Business to be Conducted Past l0: 00PM
Maggio- present Mr.
Karkowsky - present
Kull- present Mr.
Daughtry - present
Nielson- present Mr.
Visco - present
Lipari - present Mr.
Lewis - present
Hines - present Mr.
Canning (alt#2) - present
Speciale (alt#1) - present
Michael Carroll, Esq.
Stan Omland, PE
Joseph Burgis, AICP
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Mrs. Nielson: The Towaco Center Ordinance was introduced
this past Tuesday and has been scheduled for review for recommendation for
adoption at the next Planning Board meeting on May 8th. Public hearing is scheduled for May 13th
at the Township Committee level. Mr.
Burgis will be present, and encourage Planning Board members to attend this
meeting. Letters were sent to residents about this and we also posted information on our
Changebridge Rezoning Study (Shoppes
Kramer) – scheduled for May 8, 2008
Mrs. Nielson asked if the
property layout mapping included the Sunoco site. Mr. Burgis confirmed. Mr. Karkowsky indicated that when we
originally discussed this, we talked about limiting it to one tenant. In this proposal, the number provided for
tenants within a building is listed at three.
Mr. Burgis indicated that he reviewed this and felt that three tenants
would work based on size of the properties and dimensions, allows for retails,
but controls it in such a way that you really cannot develop the strip commercial
character. Mr. Burgis was asked how this
would affect parking. He indicated that
they would have the parking requirements needs of 5 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Ms. Kull indicated some of
the lots look small. If you put in
retail, would you connect the architectural look along the corridor? If not, can we somehow add some kind of
coordination to the look of the new buildings? Mr. Burgis: this is difficult to
do within an ordinance unless there was some kind of historical district
involved. Mr. Karkowsky indicated that
this could be worked out with our Design Review Commission as part of their
review process. Mr. Speciale asked for
clarification of the limits of the study.
Mr. Burgis indicated he studied from Green Meadows Road towards Rt. 80
on both sides. He did not include the
west side of Changebridge since this area was basically residential and he was
trying to minimize any impact to the areas.
He reviewed the zoning districts, and layout of the properties
Mr. Lewis: having looked at this, he thinks it reflects
a balanced approach to introducing a new concept along this corridor without
opening floodgates. This area reflects
the best possible candidates based on best possible use, while not flooding
Jennifer Horowitz, resident
and member of EDC who supports Township Committee & Planning Board. Think this is a good idea and there is an
opportunity here at Sunoco where properties are not getting the most use and
wants to add to the community some enhancement.
The plans may be limiting to allow only 3 shops per area. The development for a glorified strip mall is
something that will add beauty to the town, a community center area, where
residents would meet for lunch. 70% go
to outside the town for services, and this area will provide more services
while beautifying the area. When considering
this ordinance, consider the upside to it, indicating she sees little downside
and when someone comes for a plan, the township can encourage it. If you make it too restrictive you could turn
away developers. She indicated she is cognizant
of the parking, traffic and concerns that are there but feels too restrictive
ordinances make people turn away. We
should encourage developers to come to this township.
Mr. Karkowsky: clarified that all should be aware that we do
not turn away developers or disregard them.
If you witness some of the meetings of the Planning Board, then one
would have a better understanding of the process
Mrs. Horowitz indicated
she is not able to attend due to hours but feels the Board should look at the big
picture and don’t look at minutia. Mr. Karkowsky
responded that the Planning Board is responsible to look at the entire
This ordinance will be
further discussed at the Planning Board meeting of May 8th and to
get in comments on this draft to Mrs. White prior to this meeting. They were also asked to look at all of the
uses presently allowed in a B1 zone to make sure these are the types of uses
you wish to encourage retail development and are they fit for this area.
Draft Ordinance for
Old Bloomfield Avenue
– Jos. Burgis
A presentation of this
draft was given by Mr. Burgis on proposal for new ordinance responding to Rt.
Road corridors given. Mr. Burgis
indicated FAR% was eliminated, and relaxed some of the building and impervious
coverage requirements. This facilitates
commercial development in this area. Mr.
Lewis: concurs with planner’s
recommendation and to promote it, recommend favorable introduction of
ordinance. Larry Hines seconded. Roll
call unanimous. Ordinance will be sent
to the Township Committee for adoption.
Flooring – 45 Rt. 46 Unit 604 – B: 183, L: 6 – office
(4,360sf) distribution of wood flooring – 10 employees – 7am-5pm Mon-Fri –
business owns 12 pickup trucks and vans that are not parked on site overnight –
signage to be in compliance with approved theme (First Industrial)
Motion made by: Marie Kull
Seconded Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
PMISC08-14 AER Sales –
Chapin Rd. – B: 182, L: 6 – office (2,000s.f.)/ warehouse
(36,267 s.f.)/distribution of auto parts – 17 employees – hours of operation
5:30am-6pm Mon-Fri – parking 11 commercial vehicles on west en of building in
the loading dock area in the back of the building – no signage requested at
Motion made by:
Seconded Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
PMISC08-16 Greener Cleaner –
Chapin Rd. Unit 1109 – B: 183, L: 7.1 – office
(1,291 s.f.)/warehouse (4,179 s.f.) distribution of dry cleaning goods – 15
employees – hours of operation 7am-7pm Mon-Fri – 12 vans and 1 cube van to be
parked overnight – signage to be in compliance with approved theme (First
asked about use of materials in dry cleaning facility. Mr. Lewis indicated waiver notes that there
are two deliveries from
Camden, and that only janitorial supplies are kept on
Motion made by:
Seconded: Gary Lewis
Roll call: Unanimous
resolutions carried to May 8th agenda.
of 3/27/07 – Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry, Art Maggio, Marie
Kull, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines, Gary Lewis, Vic Canning
of 3/18/08 Subcommittee – Deb Nielson, Russ Lipari, John Visco
of 4/17/08 Joint Workshop Meeting Planning Board/Zoning Board – Eligible: Ladis
Karkowsky, Marie Kull,
John Visco, Gary Lewis,
Tony Speciale, Vic Canning
Motion made by:
Seconded: Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
Burgis Associates O/E for:
$480; $300, $90; Trust for: $630, $60, $300, $870, $150
Omland Engineering Trust
for: $202.5, $67.50, $270, $202.50, $737.50, $555, $352.50, $843.75, $1,755.00
Michael Carroll, Esq. – O/E
for: $135; Trust for: $67.50, $33.75, $33.75, $67.50, $337.50, $135, $573.75,
$33.75, $67.50, $551.25
Motion made by: Larry
Seconded by: Gary Lewis
Roll call: Unanimous
B: 41, L: 20 -Judith &
Mansour Etemadipour – LOI request @ 5 Benefly Road
Mr. Omland indicated he reviewed this LOI which is for a tract of land on
Benefy consisting of 5 acres with 4 acres wetland. He sees no opportunity for expanding new
development, and nothing for this board to be concerned about.
- K & K DEVELOPERS, Inc.,
Major Subdivision – 10 Woodmont Road, Block: 159, L: 6 – 10.2 acre parcel into
11 lots (Ten SF) – R27A Zone – Notice Acceptable & carried from 2/28/08 –
Eligible: Art Maggio,
Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull,
Art Daughtry, John
Visco, Tony Speciale ACT BY: 4/24/08
Michael Sullivan, Esq.
Mr. Karkowsky reviewed the prior straw poll taken
from the prior meeting on the elimination of the
Windsor Road cul de sac noting that we
have received some comments from the residents in this area, and would open
this subject up for input by the residents.
Mrs. White noted that additional service was provided to respond to some
streets that were not previously noticed.
Mr. Carroll sworn in the board professionals …
Brian Fleisig, Esq. – sworn
Indicates he lives on
Windsor Drive and is an attorney and does
Planning Board and Zoning Board work. He
feels this subdivision will impact the residents in the area. He had a chance to look at the town master
plan from 11/93, the Sidewalk, Element, the Fair Share Element and the Re-Examination
report. He noted he was not here for the
first meeting and was advised that instead of a cul de sac there was discussion
as to the intent of prior planners that this (
Windsor Road) be a thru street. He spoke to review of his master plan dating
back to the 80’s. and the Master Plan
from 1993 and that none of these documents bring this fact forward: there are no references to
Windsor being a thru street. Not sure whether these plans are
consistent. The Board’s failure to bring
up this issue again is a reason why it is not carried thru to today’s master
plan. There is a change of the
neighborhood from the 80’s to 90’s.
It is a quiet neighborhood with topography that is
unique. If you come up
Sylvan Road, there
are significant sight distance issues in this area. To make this a pass thru and increase
traffic, mentioning Rutledge, there will be impacts noting a significant sight
issue due to slope of existing roads.
People and pets are in the area, and everyone uses this area, all of
which will be affected by the significant traffic concern. ‘
Windsor is a minor street.
One of the underlying concerns of the Board should be the safety of
pedestrians and other vehicles and the goal should be to keep this as a minor
street. As you get further down
Windsor, the road goes
down and curves where Sylvan is met.
There are sight distance issues here, and without a traffic study, this
shouldn’t become a thru street.
The neighborhood is dealing with the adult
community going in so this issue is a double impact that this neighborhood
would sustain and what is that impact should this become a pass thru. Without this information, this application
shouldn’t be allowed to go forward.
These issues should be addressed.
Discussion continued as to conducting studies of
whether or not there should be a thru street, and that the study should also
respond to impacts on the ratables that each of the homes in an established
community is going to suffer from lack of a cul de sac, due to a thru
street. Someone could lose taxes due to
the thru street. Major concern is safety
and concerned about house value, and maximizing a ratable should be important,
seeing no sense to connecting thru street in this case.
Letters were submitted to the Planning Board. It addresses many issues that are being
addressed by neighborhood and community.
Realistically without any type of knowledge of this neighborhood and
driving around community, that this is a detriment to the development. Not allowing it means that the benefits
outweigh the detriments. Understand
concerns of township as it relates to plowing and maintenance. Feels township addressed this concern in the
past, mentioning Konner which was not put thru.
There was a concern about the neighborhood at that time also.
Mr. Lewis asked if Mr. Fleisig was speaking for
residents or for yourself asking if he was representing the neighborhood and if
necessary would ask for traffic studies.
Brian Fleisig indicated he felt the developer
wouldn’t object to the cul de sac approach.
He is talking about a minor road and a minor street.
Michael Sutton, 29 Windsor – previously sworn
Moved in 16 years and built on
Windsor due to cul de sac, and it was not a
thru street. He noted he also built a
C-shaped driveway on street for kids to play in street. When first moved in at the end of street,
there was no parking on the street due to parking in driveways. What has happened is that the number of
people speeding was ridiculous due to wide open roadway. Most important point, understood there was an
objection of a resident on
Road if this road was to go thru. He took the initiative and did several test
drives and after summarizing, felt there was no basis for the input offered to
the Board from that resident at that time.
Windsor –sworn - indicated why there is a
sense of community and why they moved to this community. As a new residence, this sense of community
exists for this reason, and this cul de sac is used for this reason. In this area of Pine Brook, there is no
access to parks and no place to play other than the cul de sac. He sees no benefits of making this a thru
street. He looked at traffic flow at
peak hours, so sees no congestion that would be improved with thru street.
14 Windsor Drive – sworn - talked about
the neighborhood and fabric of the neighborhood such as block parties which has
become a crucial part of the character of this area. There would be a detrimental affect if thru
street goes thru. Also stated her review
of the Master Plan noted that Woodmont is the only school with significant
walkers, quoting Master Plan, and it is important to maintain this
character. The Board should look at the
peak morning commute time, feeling the safety of children could be
compromised. It is paramount that this
be studies be done in order to make an informed decision.
Konner area discussed. She indicated she looked into master plan in
93 version which provided for connection, but Planning Board decided to not
connect completely. The elimination of
Konner to Horseneck is recommended in order to discourage thru traffic in
adjacent residential areas. Considering
Windsor Drive is a
minor road, this should be designed to discourage thru traffic. Minor road is to use for access to
residential property and not to be used as a thru street or collector. The connection to
Woodmont Road; is it safe at this area,
or do you need a traffic signal in this area, mentioning left turn. Has any studies been made to determine if a
traffic light is needed.
Mr. Nigris -
39 Windsor Drive – sworn
Echoed prior comments offered, but since there is
one way in and one way out on Windsor Drive, right now there are very little
burglar issues. If you create another
way in from this end, it is a quick jump to Rt. 80 on this end. You may have people casing houses, and this
opens door to this area. There is only
one way out if there is robbery. In
order to mitigate this, need two police officers. Live in a time where kids are susceptible to kidnapping
and time is of the essence, another way out of this development would be
42 Windsor Drive – sworn
Raise a point as to why safety issue is a
problem. In broad daylight, car was hit and
it was because of the nature of road. It
is a safety concern.
32 Windsor Drive - sworn
You have plenty of reasons not to do this, and want
a great reason as to why this has to be done.
40 Windsor Drive – sworn
Sidewalks aren’t on his side of street. Now they walk kids across street. Is in the house 13 years, and had to have
police radar the cars going thru. Any
increased traffic will make it worst.
Brian Fleisig – previously sworn
He explained that walking to school across
Windsor to get to the
sidewalk, if you have this pass thru, you will have a significant increase in
Closed to public meeting in a Motion made by: Mr. Speciale Seconded by: Ms. Kull
Meeting closed to public
Motion made by:
Tony Speciale, seconded by Marie Kull to move that the Board eliminate
Windsor as a thru street.
Gary Lewis noted he is not eligible to vote since
he did not certify to listening to missed meeting disk.
Mr. Maggio summarized the Board talked about this
at last meeting as far as safety, and in conjunction with advice offered by the
board professionals, what has changed?
He indicated we have these written reports in the record. Is there anything in writing differently?
Russ Lipari agreed with Mr. Maggio, noting we also received
requests from public works, township engineer, Board professionals, Morris County
Planning Board as well as a number of other agencies.
Mr. Speciale indicated the fire inspector who wrote
his report indicated it could be either or.
Mr. Lipari indicated that the report he reviewed indicated they
preferred a thru street. Mr. Speciale
indicated they were here this evening to respond to this issue.
Mr. Carroll explained that the board could ask for
additional input from the fire officials.
Mr. Daughtry indicated that there are other professionals involved. If
there is development on top of hill that will access this road, then this
should be addressed.
Tabled Motion to hear input from fire inspector…
Robert Schmidt, Fire Prevention Bureau –indicated
that they only made recommendations with chief that there be a connection for
Windsor Drive for
better access. If the cul de sac
remains, wanted assurances that there is a turning radius for fire apparatus,
and request fire hydrant on end of cul de sac.
If the township wanted to go thru, no problem, if not, they then wanted
additional installation on cul de sac.
as far as fire department, then it wouldn’t make any difference to
them? Mr. Schmidt concurred.
Motion made by:
Mr. Speciale to go with cul de
Marie Kull: seconded
In favor – Mr. Speciale, John Visco & Marie
Larry Hines, Art Maggio,
Art Daughtry, Ladis Karkowsky
Deb Nielson (did not have enough information)
Gary Lewis (did not certify to prior hearing)
Tony Speciale is the alternate vote due to Mr.
Lewis’s ineligibility. Alt. #2 - Vic
Canning - yes
Mrs. White explained alternate votes and that there was a majority of
regular board members which resulted in five members which is a quorum. Although alternates are called when there is
a full board, this is done for record keeping only, and is not required by law.
Applicant proceeded with engineer testimony of
Engineer Arthur Elias, PE from Keller & Kirkpatrick
Mr. Caggiano was also present, and previously sworn
Mr. Elias will be the project manager going forward
with this developer. Since the last
hearing, the revisions submitted and reviewed are labeled with the date
revision of 7/18/08 drawings.
Rendered plan reviewed. Sheet 1
of 1 – colorized subdivision layout reviewed and how it relates to RSIS. – Exhibit marked
RSIS waiver as to sidewalk discussed. He discussed
the building envelopes existing on site.
Layouts reviewed, sheets of the improvements
reviewed. 28’ wide road, and also
depicts conceptual lot layouts. Grading
plans for each lot need to be addressed.
The new road intersects with
Elias was asked if there are adequate safety issues addressed, and about the physical
connection of road, asking if there is a sight distance problem. Under RSIS, he reviewed the anticipated
traffic generated. Discussion ensued on adequate sight distance.
PE previously sworn and certified
it being per code. There is sight
distance at Woodmont and this is shown on site improvement plan and it complies
with standard for adequate intersection distance in either direction. It has adequate sight distance.
if you make a right, there is a distance of 150’ between two
intersections. You can see visibility at
least 300’ out in either direction. You
cannot see around turn and up to Dogwood intersection, about 150’. He asked for clarification from Mr. Elias. Mr. Elias indicated it complied with 150’
standard going from ROW to ROW.
on conceptual grading, is this the proposed grading for this lot? Mr. Elias:
the Subdivision plan shows box, to indicate this is conceptual. Should subdivision be approved, engineer
indicated that the lot is then subject to a specific design. Mr. Lewis: on lot 6.05, this lot indicates sheet flow
comes at big clip, and directed at the corner of the building. You need to slope away from foundation. Applicant will address.
The utility plans depict various utility
improvements which are just sewer lines at end of property up to
Woodmont Road. Water line would run from Woodmont to
Windsor Road. Gas Line would run up thru
Woodmont Road. Underground utilities proposed.
Landscape and lighting plan discussed.
Steep slopes and grades discussed. Need relief from waivers from all but two of
Lot 6.04 – indicated they are protecting 4,000 sq. ft. of
land not to be disturbed to minimize steep slopes. Mr. Sullivan:
the property is substantially in the front. Is there an ability to place a pool on this property? Applicant indicated they could modify to place
a pool on property.
marked as slopes map. There are a few isolated areas that cannot
meet steep slopes. This is a unique topo
condition that creates a hardship to the developer. Because of the location of slopes, they
cannot work around it. With respect to
development plan laid out, all disturbed areas will be re-vegetated. Water will run to street. The proposed layout protects goals in
preserving steep slopes.
Lot 6.04 – Ms. Kull asked if the reason the house is
positioned this way is because of the steep slopes. Mr. Burgis asked if the developer could look
at a different location. Engineer indicated the applicant would have to slide
home back into the building envelope.
House cannot move up to front setback line, but can move up.
Areas of wetlands discussed.
Other than minor waiver for one sidewalk vs. two sidewalks,
this development complies with RSIS.
reports received as well as engineer’s April 3rd and 4th
and incorporated them in April 17th exhibit A3. Applicant’s
position is that all minor issues can be achieved and will be complied with by
Mr. Omland: as to steep slopes in front yard adjacent to
road and house, can you construct a pool and deck without disturbing steep
slope. Recognizing you require waiver
from steep slope ordinance, this area is steep slopes, Mr. Omland asked to have
this enclosed in a conservation area.
Comment No. 5 of Mr. Omland’s report
discussed: what improvements were being
Woodmont Road. Applicant indicated installation of a
sidewalk. The memo wrote what
improvements should be addressed: Mr. Omland indicated he believed in a uniform
widening of roadway, asking how the applicant feels about this. Township Engineer was also asked for input on
this issue, but nothing received at this time.
Applicant acknowledged he would comply with Mr. Omland’s report except
for changes required by public works and township engineer.
As to the retaining wall near basin Mr. Omland
asked if applicant intended to deal with his issues also. Applicant indicated he would also comply with
this article in Mr. Omland’s report.
On detention basin, Mr. Omland noticed perc tests
were taken from different place vs. bottom of basin. Rock was encountered. Understand blasting would be needed. How certain are you that you would have
success in the ability of building a basin in this rock formation, and will you
definitely need to blast? Mr. Omland
reminded applicant there is a blasting policy in place that necessitates
notification and measurements beyond convention requirements.
Relating to the interests public had this evening,
and to better assess what this project has to the resident, Mr. Omland asked if
the Board has an interest to conduct a traffic analysis to truly weigh the
implications voiced by residents.
Mr. Karkowsky indicated this would be a good idea
due to residents concerns and maybe this will eliminate resident’s concerns or
board’s approach. Ms. Nielson thought
that a traffic study is warranted. We
should take the extra step to reaffirm it or change our decision.
understands there are ramifications to suggesting some alternatives, but
noted there is something similar as to roadway design on
Jacksonville Road near
There was a thru road, and town just opened up the back end and wondered
if we should keep all options open, and not release easements on these two
pieces thus keep the easements so if there is an issue, we would have better
abilities to address resolution of it. What
is the downsize of leaving the bulb.
talking from a procedure standpoint, this is practical. Usually we restore easements back to
homeowners, but this thought and practical approach provides an opportunity for
a change something in the future. He
indicated he has no problem with leaving easement allowing the conversion back
to a cul de sac. Discussion ensued about
leaving the cul de sac there and going with the thru road, voicing concerns
about any problems this may create. Mrs.
Nielson indicated we did this for a reason in Bear Rock. Discussion ensued on other ideas and traffic
calming devices to slow down traffic, knowing we would want to leave ROW for
both so if you wanted to revert back, you could do so. Mr. Daughtry Omland indicated we should
consider having easements on both sides of the cul de sac. What kind of problems with post office
deliveries and 911 dispatches? Mr.
Omland indicated you would need to set another name, like east/west
Windsor. Mr. Visco:
feels we should investigate everything.
Mr. Speciale: thinks we should
ask for more traffic study. We should also
get in comments from road or DPW; traffic safety officer, Township
Mr. Omland indicated he did solicit comments on
this issue with both Mr. Mazzaccaro and Mr. Barile, and their recommendations coincide
with Mr. Omland and Mr. Burgis report.
Mr. Sullivan was asked to submit a limited traffic
study. Mr. Sullivan indicated he would as long as
there was a scope of review limiting study areas. Applicant agreed and would work with Mr.
Omland on this.
all other issues have been addressed.
For Mr. Elias: 5,000 sq. ft. on
6.04 and 6.09 are shown outside building envelope and want to see proper
6.01 driveway may be closer than 50’ to intersection. Applicant indicated he measured 55’ to edge
of pavement. Applicant was asked to confirm
measurements. There will be a post and
rail fence around the detention basin.
Mesh behind fence posts.
Detention basin is about 10’, and water would be around 4’.
sight triangles easements need to be shown on subdivision plan. Please make sure they are there. Rock blasting needs to be addressed. Is there a soil movement permit required with
this application? This is a Township
Committee function, and these needs to be presented to township committee and would
be conditions are conditions of approval.
Fill on latest plan is shown on sheet 14. It is a balanced cut. There is a typo on sheet 2. It is supposed to be balanced job. Blasting stays on site? Applicant indicated positively.
voiced concerns about sales trailer and these are unsightly? Site improvement plan shows a location for a
sales trailer uphill of the detention basin.
Ms. Nielson voiced concerns.
Applicant asked to address. Mr.
Omland: DA talks about maintenance code,
but this board can talk to quality of structures and location.
asked about extent of blasting from her review of the plans? As to houses, what kind of foundation and
would like to know the depth and quantities for a typical house, as well as the
total area subject to change. What type
of rock that is there. Concerned about
the possibility of vibration of house penetrating this and how will it
affecting neighboring homes. What kind
of area is being considered, if any, for storing of rock? What kind of equipment will be on site and
how much dust.
Mr. Omland explained the town is aggressive in
protecting citizens over years. Hands
are tied by state rules and we cannot expand on their regulations, although we
get more abilities from township policies we cannot overstep. Applicant
is required to abide by policy with pre-blast and this determines some of the
answers to resident’s questions. Site
balances include roadway and houses?
Need to look at houses also.
There will be export that has to go to the township committee. Applicant has to provide testimony.
In traffic study, Ms. Leblanc asked if the board
would include peak am and pm and projected traffic for proposed and existing
for increase in traffic, and also at nighttime when it is an extremely quiet
street; include passenger and commercial vehicle also.
Windsor Road - as to the School, he voiced
concerns about impact of new houses and what the school’s capacity is? He doesn’t think the sidewalks go down to existing
sidewalks, and how is this going to be addressed. Mr. Schenkel advised that those residents
would pay for subscription bussing like the rest of the residents. Mrs. White indicated the Board of Ed does
review subdivisions and renders a report, and will follow up on their
Brian Fleisig apologized for passion voicing
concerns on lost of control and apologizes for disrespect to the Board, asking
if there are sidewalks in this development.
Mr. Elias indicated yes, one side only on eastern side. Mr. Fleisig indicated there are no sidewalks
going down Woodmont. Mr. Fleisig was
told that on a project like this, applicant provides for his frontage
only. If there are no sidewalks, the children
will need to cross over to Woodmont road and has there been any consideration
as to any impact on walking to this school asked Mr. Fleisig? He was advised we cannot required off-site
Mr. Omland noted this road complies with RSIS, and
doesn’t know anything about this road being used for parking relative to
Ms. Nielson asked applicant to make sure that they
also are aware of the requirement of complying with staging of construction
equipment during construction: wants to
make sure there is no staging or parking of equipment along
Woodmont Road. All vehicles have to be internal to this
This application was carried to June 12th
agenda with notice preserved and time to act extended to June 13th
on record by Mr. Sullivan in a Motion made by:
Larry Hines, seconded by Art Maggio
Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull,
Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio,
Larry Hines, Tony Speciale (alt#1) and Victor Canning (alt. #2)
– MARKOVSKI – Minor Subdivision
clarification of building condition imposed for new construction @
5 Stoneybrook Road,
B: 21, L: 33.03 - General Notice Acceptable
Mrs. White indicated that the original plan
submitted to the Township Zoning Officers reflected inconsistencies with
testimony offered at the time this application was entertained, providing for
windows on second floor. This aspect of
the plan was asked to be reconsidered by Planning Board, but the applicant
modified his building plans to comply with intent of the Planning Board
resolution. She instructed applicant to
proceed to construction based on the revisions made to prior plans. The report received by Stan Omland indicates
he agrees with this finding.
MOORE REALTY –
River Road - Block: 76,
12 - Request for additional extension of time for Final Approval to April 12,
2009 (adopted 4/8/04)
Mrs. White indicated that although these types of
request are generally formality, in view of what has been experienced recently
on cost of improvements, such as the Acker subdivision, she has asked the
township engineer and the Planning Board engineer to review this issue to see
if the bonding needs to be readdressed.
Mr. Barile agreed with this direction.
Motion made by grant extension subject to review of
bonding to ensure adequate made by: Larry
Hines Seconded by
PSP/F06 - 13 Hoff, Patrick –
Stiles Ln. – B: 160.02, L: 10 – discussion re:
request for change in parking lot fixtures.
Mrs. White indicated she
received a request to change the previously approved lighting fixtures on this
site to that of the specification/light submitted to the Board in the
packages. It is not the Towaco
streetscape light. The lights although
not located in our ROW would be a streetscape design feature. Mr. Hoff asked for the Board to consider this
light referencing the lights that were erected inside the Delaware Hudson
parking lot instead of the shoebox lights previously approved. Mrs. White asked Mr. Omland to review this
for the Planning Board and advice.
Once market place slowed,
another manufacturer copycats it. Now
there is another one close to provide. Mr. Omland will provide report for next
unanimously in a Motion made by
Seconded by Larry Hines.
Linda M. White