4-24-08 PB Minutes Print E-mail

MONTVILLE 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

ROLL CALL

Mr. Maggio- present                        Mr. Karkowsky - present  

Ms. Kull- present                             Mr. Daughtry - present

Ms. Nielson- present                       Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari - present                         Mr. Lewis - present

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

                                                                        Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present

Also present:

Michael Carroll, Esq.

Stan Omland, PE

Joseph Burgis, AICP

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

None

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 municipal website.

PLANNING BUSINESS

Changebridge Rezoning Study (Shoppes @ Montville @ 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 studied.   

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 Changebridge Road with traffic.

Jennifer Horowitz, resident of Michele Way 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 township. 

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. 46/Old Bloomfield 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.

WAIVERS

            PMISC08-15 Alite Flooring – 45 Rt. 46 Unit 604 – B: 183, L: 6 – office

(2,640sf)/warehouse (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 – 11 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 this time.

Motion made by:  Art Daughtry

Seconded Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous

PMISC08-16 Greener Cleaner – 26 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 Industrial)

Question 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 site.

Motion made by:  Art Daughtry

Seconded: Gary Lewis

Roll call:  Unanimous

RESOLUTIONS

All resolutions carried to May 8th agenda.                                                                                                           

CORRESPONDENCE

None

MINUTES

Minutes of 3/27/07 – Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry, Art Maggio, Marie Kull, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines, Gary Lewis, Vic Canning

Minutes of 3/18/08 Subcommittee – Deb Nielson, Russ Lipari, John Visco

Minutes of 4/17/08 Joint Workshop Meeting Planning Board/Zoning Board – Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Russ Lipari, Tony Speciale, Vic Canning

Motion made by:  Russ Lipari

Seconded:  Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous

INVOICES

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 (K&S)

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 Hines

Seconded by:  Gary Lewis

Roll call:  Unanimous

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

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. 

OLD BUSINESS

PMSP/F07-10 - K & K DEVELOPERS, Inc., Major Subdivision – 10 Woodmont Road, Block: 159, L: 6 – 10.2 acre parcel into 11 lots (Ten SF) – R27A Zone – Notice Acceptable & carried from 2/28/08 – Eligible:  Art Maggio, Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Art Daughtry, John Visco, Tony Speciale                                                                                                                         ACT BY:  4/24/08

Present:  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 …

Testimony taken

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 Sylvan 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.

Richard Plumb, 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.

Deborah Leblanc, 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 halted. 

Jim Walsh, 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.

Edward Astrom 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.

Jeff Schenkel 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 traffic. 

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.

Mr. Hines:  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 sac

Marie Kull: seconded

In favor – Mr. Speciale, John Visco & Marie Kull

Opposed:  Larry Hines, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry, Ladis Karkowsky

Abstain:  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

Motion failed.  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 subdivision layout.

Engineer Arthur Elias, PE from Keller & Kirkpatrick – sworn 

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

Board recessed…

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 Woodmont Road.  Mr. 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. 

Mr. Caggiano, 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.

Mr. Canning:  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.

Mr. Lewis:  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 the lots.

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.

Exhibit A2 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. 

Professional 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 applicant.

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 proposed for 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.

Mr. Daughtry:  understands there are ramifications to suggesting some alternatives, but noted there is something similar as to roadway design on Jacksonville Road near Lincoln Park.  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.

Mr. Omland:  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 Engineer.   

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. 

Mr. Burgis:  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 placement.  Lot 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’.

Ms. Nielson:  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. 

Ms. Nielson:  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.

Deborah Leblanc:  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.

Geoff Schenkel, 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 report. 

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 improvements. 

Mr. Omland noted this road complies with RSIS, and doesn’t know anything about this road being used for parking relative to Hilltop Care. 

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 site. 

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

Roll call:  Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale (alt#1) and Victor Canning  (alt. #2)

  

PMN03-21 – 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.

PMS/F- 03-07-04-07 MOORE REALTY – 70 River Road - Block: 76, Lot 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 Deb Nielson

Roll call:  Unanimous

PSP/F06 - 13 Hoff, Patrick – 57 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 meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

None

CONCEPTS

None

Meeting adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by Russ Lipari, Seconded by Larry Hines.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

 

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 27 May 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack