|
MONTVILLETOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF MAY 22, 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 -
absent Mr.
Lewis - present
Mr. Hines –
present Mr. Canning (alt#2) – present
Mr. Speciale (alt#1) – present
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF
COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION
No public
24 Hour Operation – Dunkin Donut – Mr. Karkowsky summarized the various
issues of activity on this type of request, noticing the other sites that have
a 24 hour operation, noting without an ordinance, we are hard pressed to deny
something like this. Gary Lewis: This operation is not in this group, and is
at a Board of Adjustment, and is a legitimate reason for the granting of a
variance. If we want protection, we want
an ordinance. Mr. Burgis indicated that
some municipalities have this control.
You cannot outright prohibit them, but if you have a residential area,
you can do it in a business zone that is a mixed zone use. Those types of things are sustained. You have to be careful. Mr. Canning:
crime ratio and incident restricts hours of operation, but you have to
prove it. You can’t arbitrarily create
this, and must have specific reasons.
Mr. Lewis
discussed the Towaco hearing and the Township Committee hearing noticing the
packed rooms from prior hearing, and that the fact there was few at this
meeting, this is a perfect example of the way the process should work. Mr. Burgis was complimented. Mr. Karkowsky indicated he was pleased that
all worked together.
Tony Speciale
asked about variances and Dunkin Donut, and resolution provides testimony as it
relates to what the process is. Mrs.
White explained the procedures. Mr.
Speciale indicated this is a residential area and would like to make sure the
residents are protected.
Discussion
ensued on regulating hours of operation.
Mr. Burgis: without some guidance
and directive, the ordinance suggested would be open ended, and should be
identified. If you are in a mixed used
environment with residential development, you may not want to permit this. This is a standard where you make the
decision, and make the criteria in the ordinance. Put this on a subcommittee meeting, and have
this issue discussed with board attorney present.
PLANNING
BUSINESS
Changebridge Rezoning Study/draft
ordinance - (Shoppes @ Montville
@ Kramer)
Submitted on
April 22nd the regulatory controls permitting retail zones in a
light industrial zone, with the southern portion of the corridor with about 12
lots which would allow industrial and commercial, and would allow retail as
another permitted use, with landscaping and buffer requirement and cap the
number of retail development to the number of three. This is basic change.
Gary
Lewis: if an applicant choose to ask
four to five spaces, are these all C-variances, or is there a break point, what
board has jurisdiction? Mr. Burgis
indicated this would be a Planning Board application. Not putting an FAR% in this zone. This Planning Board would be required to hear
application with C variance application.
Ms.
Nielson: ordinance allows for additional
retail as well as industrial.
Opened to
public…
Ed Trawinsky,
Esq.
Represents
contract purchasers on Changebridge
Road who asked to look at this corridor and
appreciate this ordinance.
Jennifer
Horowitz, thank Board to open this up to allow redevelopment in this area, and
want to deal with this being reviewed as it relates to Planning Board
control. She indicated we would like to
see this done on a case by case basis.
Look at a particular retail developer’s idea and think it beautifies the
community; we would want to see this happen.
Thank Planning Board for this concept.
Closed by Art Daughtry Seconded by Tony Speciale
Motion made
by: by Gary Lewis – believe that the
township will benefit greatly from potential redevelopment of the Changebridge
corridor and this is a controlled avenue to allow some limited retail in this
corridor while protecting residents by keeping on opposite side of street, and
move that we send this up to Township Committee for adoption.
Seconded: Tony Speciale
Roll
call: Unanimous - Art
Daughtry, Deb Nielson,
Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Larry Hines, Marie Kull, Tony Speciale, Victor Canning,
Ladis Karkowsky :
COAH update/Impact Fee ordinance
Mr. Burgis
indicated that the rules were adopted with a large manual and appendices to
rules which will be published June 2nd with a comment period. Mr. Burgis is reviewing them now and there
are inconsistencies. One of the thing in
proposed rule is addressed a township’s affordable needs and ours dropped
slightly. Our residential growth is
estimated at 978 additional dwelling with 20% being affordable units
required. It also indicates an estimate
1898 additional jobs in our community and for every 16 jobs; there is a
requirement of 1 more unit.
Adding all of
the numbers would be 360, reduction of 20.
Rules go into affect June 2nd. Kevin Walsh couldn’t wait and already filed
lawsuit against COAH. League of
Municipality is gathering monies from each municipality to generate $100,000 to
file litigation in early June. He
indicated there are others that are proceeding who are banning together to also
file a lawsuit. Making certain all of
these municipalities have received 2nd round and/or filed for third
round.
Re-Examination
Master Plan Update
Laws will go
into affect, and we have until December 31st to file a 3rd
round plan. We are not technically
obligated to file with COAH, and as we see what happens, best position is to
prepare the document and decide before end of year how we want to proceed.
Ladis Karkowsky: how does this affect us with the aged
restricted housing people want to build in town. Under 3rd round rule, you have to
address 25% thru age restricted units.
It was 50%, and appellant decision was critical lowering it to 25%.
What about Rt.
46 near Kevah Konner, GI auto, what happens with this situation? Mr. Burgis indicated there was one
significant issue: COAH refused to
recognize demolition, and now they acknowledge demo for residential. You get to subtract out replacement and
minimizes the burden. Same would exist
for Towaco, which is a good example. GI
is a bad example.
Marie
Kull: if we put only single family
detached units in, there are two ways to deal with it: applicant buys a payment in lieu which is
around $70,000 per unit, or township can adopt a development fee ordinance and
property owners would pay 2% to 3% fee.
If you take these funds, you have to have a spending plan, and one of
the significant changes is what can happen if you don’t spend the monies. Statewide is 115M in monies throughout the
state. If don’t spend it the State can
spend it and use it. You can also make a
regional contribution and can transfer 50% to other municipalities with
controls in it. There is a bill pending
to do away with RCA’s. This is easiest
ways for these outer communities to get these funds. Urban communities want to continue this, and suburbans
want it also. Deb
Nielson: should we
draft a letter to the Township Committee and have this done. Get a petition up with some unified effort
since their voice will be heard.
Mr.
Maggio: what else should we do? Mr. Burgis:
After June 2nd, go forward with developing the fee
ordinance. What happens when a town is
grown out, asked Mr. Karkowsky. Mr.
Burgis indicated there is a process and you are supposed to encourage where redevelopment
and put overlay zones to encourage future affordable housing. How are these figures achieved? Mr. Burgis indicated is that they look at
vacant land. In a number of situations,
it is proven based on amount of vacant land showed along Garden State
parkway, the only way is to have included the median of the Garden State Parkway, and this is the
difference.
Gary
Lewis: Impact of growth share
obligation, you have to submit a plan as to how you are going to meet these
regulations, and have had some business entities purchasing less than optimal
properties in a town and rehabbing them, but not doing a rehab, and putting an
affordable housing on it. Made purchase
and turned over to non-profit. Not sure
we should do this.
Mr.
Burgis: you can do this, and buy one or
two units, put a deed restriction and get a credit for it.
Why not make
the developer the ‘agent’ vs the township setting an ordinance. Mr. Burgis indicated the problem is with
smaller lots and how you would do that.
Deb
Nielson: where do we go from here? Would like to hear these and go forward to be
prepared for COAH regulations so we can address these with development
applications, and we want to make sure whatever regulation and/or fees are in
place in proper sequence.
First put a
development fee ordinance together, and then work on the Housing Element and
Fair Share Plan so this is completed prior to end of year. This would give us a handle on how far off
this COAH number is
Deb
Nielson: if we put in a fee ordinance without housing
element, is this enforceable. Joe Burgis:
the fee ordinance applies to residential and commercial. Are these ordinances enforceable because of
all of these lawsuits? You put these
monies into a trust.
Mr. Maggio:
what happened? Mr. Burgis: some towns didn’t do anything, never
adopted housing element, and never been sued.
Some said wait and see when we do get sued. You don’t get to control your fate is the
issue.
Discussion
ensued on existing single family houses/expansion/additions, and concerns for
these homes being impacted. Mr. Burgis
indicated you can put these exemptions in place.
Mr.
Maggio: why can’t we make our own
plan? Mr. Burgis: we have to assess what our growth will be. He reviewed 22 towns and agreed with 2 of the
22 that he agreed with. This is part of
the housing element that he does. For
this fee, the Board gets an analysis of the state fee.
Mr. Burgis was
authorized to draft opposition to COAH on rules for the township Planning Board
and Township Committee.
Report from Joe
Burgis on Referral of review of Sign Ordinance from John
Dorsey, Esq.
Linda
White summarized Mr. Carroll’s input.
Mr. Burgis indicated that he is involved in some of this litigation, and
on Rt. 287 near Franklin Avenue,
applicant proposed 2 billboards on either size at 1,000 sq. ft. in size, and
argued there was no real basis other than they need a 1,000 sq. ft. Case law indicates there are billboards that
have a service. Mr. Burgis summarized
that when you identify the various highway signs like rest stop signs, these
signs are 102 sq. ft. and argued that if you can get efficient information on
102 sq. ft., it should be made to find an appropriate message across in this
size vs 1,000 sq. ft. In many instances
100 sq. ft is all that is allowed on major highways. Wait until this decision is handed down, and
see what it says, and then respond to this.
The draft ordinance has a strict prohibition on billboards and this is
where you will have a problem.
Update of Master Plan/Re-examination
Mr. Burgis
indicated he under Master Plan wasn’t going to happen. He indicated he adjusted prices
accordingly. Speaking to the housing
element, originally said it would be an upset figure and go on hourly rate and
didn’t know what would happen.
Development Fee ordinance would be in the Housing Element.
Have an
initial contract up to end of year with $15,000 and if it comes back in 2009,
would be a different budget.
Re-examination
report and critical issues was the aged restricted housing study and this
reduces that. He scaled back on background data also since some of the data is
involved.
$44,000 is the
re-write – is hourly. Will be assembling
information for Mr. Burgis and is also why some of these numbers was reduced
since work will be done in house. .
Gary
Lewis: some of the re-examination issues
is the timeline, and can’t do justice in the same period of time and important
that we meet the 2009 deadline.
Accept
proposal with timelines. Shoot for February 2009.
Motion made
by: Gary Lewis
Second made
by: Larry Hines
Re-examination
must be done by March 09 by law (6 laws)
Housing
Element must be done by December 31st.
Victor Canning,
Tony Speciale, Marie Kull, Larry Hines, Art Maggio, Gary Lewis, Deb Nielson, Art Daughtry,
Ladis Karkowksy
Referral Review of B3 Zone – public
hearing May 27th
These
amendments are consistent with the Master Plan.
Mr. Maggio moved to adopt at TC level and seconded by Lewis.
Roll
call: unanimous
Deb
Nielson: discussed two rezoning matters that came
before the Planning Board, mentioned V&L and ask that this site be reviewed
by Mr. Burgis so that we can authorize Mr. Burgis to meet with this owner to
proceed. Prioritize this and put this
near the top to work with them.
The other
property is near Rt. 202 and Changebridge
Road. The
County did a study and an analysis of intersection of Changebridge & Rt.
202, and one of the recommendations was a bypass road that went behind
Schroth’s to take some of the traffic off this intersection. Township has worked with Town’s engineer, and
goes from Rt. 287/Rt. 202 to Kayhart
Lane. There
is a driveway that goes back to JCP&L and are working with them and are
acceptable to allowing access thru there.
This will improve this circulation.
This goes thru 13 acres in this area and there is a large amount of
monies involved for these improvements and to be mindful to put a funding
program to complete this by-pass road, and would ask that this be given a high
consideration as well. This site needs
to be reviewed, and there is interest in age-restricted house, mixed use, what
it does have is criss-crossed by utility easements. There was a contact made for escrow. Mrs.
White will ask again if they wish to have the planner review this. Plan is for By-Pass to be County
maintained. Morris County
is not talking about funding at this time.
There may be signals lights involved also. Very preliminary plan established at this
time. Discussion ensued. Schneider
Lane is being used as a By-Pass lane. Gary Lewis:
this would be part of land use plan.
WAIVERS
PMISC08-19 Carter
McKenzie – 43 Rt. 46
Suite 705 – B : 183, L : 6 – office 2,254 s.f. for recruiting and
placement agency – 8-10 employees – 8am to 6pm Mon-Fri – signage to be in
compliance with approved theme (First Industrial)
Motion
made by: Larry Hines
Seconded
by: Art Maggio
To
approve subject to compliance with use letter, sign theme and compliance with
all agency findings.
RESOLUTIONS
PMSP/FC00-25-07-16 PISANO (Brianna Estates) – 36 Horseneck Rd. – B: 125.05, L: 14 –
subdivision w/variances – 4 lots – Eligible:
Art Maggio, Marie Kull, Larry Hines, Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry, Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale (alt#1), Vic
Canning (alt#2)
Motion
made by: Art Maggio
Seconded:
Larry Hines
Roll
call: Art Maggio, Marie Kull, Larry
Hines, Ladis Karkowsky, Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale, Victor Canning
CORRESPONDENCE
PMSP/F05-06 (Ref: PMSP97-17 Brasp) Francisco &
Bicalho – 236 Changebridge
Rd. B: 138.01, L: 3 – request for extension of
approvals to 5/25/09
Motion
made by: to grant extension of time to
5/25/09 made by: Gary Lewis
Seconded
by: Larry Hines
Roll
call vote: Unanimous
MINUTES
Minutes
of 5/8/08 – Eligible: Art Maggio, Ladis
Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Russ Lipari,
Tony Speciale
Subcommittee
Minutes of 5/6/08 – Eligible: Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson,
Art Daughtry, John Visco & Russ Lipari
Motion made by:
Marie Kull
Seconded by: Art Maggio
Adopted unanimously
INVOICES
Burgis Assoc. – O/E for: $60, Trust for:
$150, $281.70, $90, $530
Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for:
$250, $562.50, $250, $62.50,
$31.25,
$31.25, $62.50
Johnson,
Murphy – Trust for; $250, $220
Motion
made by: Larry Hines
Seconded
by: Art Maggio
Roll
Call: Unanimous
LOI/DEP
NOTIFICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
None
CONCEPTS
None
Meeting
adjourned unanimously.
Respectfully
submitted,
Linda M. White
|
