PB Minutes - 5-22-08 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building


No New Business to be Conducted Past l0: 00PM


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






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. 


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.


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.


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 



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 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


          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










Meeting adjourned unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

With explanation

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 01 July 2008 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack