MONTVILLETOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2008
No New Business to be Conducted Past
Mr. Maggio - present Mr.
Karkowsky - present
Ms. Kull -
Daughtry - present
Ms. Nielson - entrance noted Mr. Visco - absent
Mr. Lipari -
present Mr. Lewis –
Mr. Hines -
present Mr. Canning
(alt#2) – present
Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present
indicated that some of the sidebar conversations are being picked up and that
the mikes should be cut back when board members are talking since some of the
dialogue and testimony is hard to keep up with when another board member is
listening to recording.
Mr. Omland on a recent appointment. Mr.
Karkowsky indicated that he and the Board congratulates Mr. Omland on his
recent appointment to the Morris County College Board.
Master Plan/Re-examination Proposal
from J. Burgis
indicated the proposal from Mr. Burgis is updated reflecting pricing for review
work totaling $81,500. She indicated the
Board allocated an additional $30,000 on top of this figure to cover other
expenses, publications, and other board professional input and reviews totaling
a request for $111,500. Mrs. White will
send this proposal along with request for additional funds amounting to
$111,500 to the Township Committee so we can start preparing for workshop
meetings in immediate future.
Moved by: Russ Lipari
by: Art Maggio
Lewis: wanted assurances that the number of copies
of the draft and final due to vast distribution of the documents should be in
the proposal. Mrs. White indicated this
is reflected on page 3 of the proposal, where Mr. Burgis indicates 12 copies. It is her opinion that these 12 copies will
be of all draft and final documents. Mr.
Kain will discuss and clarify this with Mr. Burgis. Mrs. White indicated that if and when we need
additional copies, she will see if we can provide in house copies and/or
compare different copy companies at that time.
County Wastewater Management Plan – County of Morris
indicated that the County has requested municipalities to appoint a committee
to work on the wastewater management plan per State Plan requirements. Towards this goal, the Township Committee has
appointed a committee consisting of Township Engineer and Water and Sewer
Department. We will get updates as this
Letter of Opposition – COAH rules
indicated she prepared a Resolution opposing the adoption of the bills relative
to COAH legislation Bill A500 and S1783.
Mrs. White noted that A500 passed assembly on Monday. The opposition indicated that these bills eliminates a
voluntary, affordable housing compliance mechanism, regional contribution
agreements, and provides no incentives for the provision of affordable
housing. It also establishes
a 2.5% statewide commercial development fee, which relieves commercial
developers of their housing obligation. It does not, however,
relieve property taxpayers. The presumption by League is that taxpayers will be
compelled to provide this offset. And finally, these bills
create a new State Housing Commission. The League also questions how the
creation of additional layer of government will provide any better guidance
from the State on affordable housing policy.
Motion to adopt and transmit to legislators made by: Russ Lipari Seconded by: Art Maggio Roll call Vote: Unanimous
Permit Extension Act
This Act was
recently passed extending all approvals to 2010. Mrs. White indicated she is working with the
Township Attorney and Engineer to insure that bonding be reviewed annually to
ensure there are adequate funds available to the municipality should any
development under way goes defunct.
indicated that certain environmental permits are not extended. Mrs. White indicated she is working with
these professionals reviewing DA’s in order to determine status of their
projects (i.e. completion of roads/lighting/landscaping) and to make sure there
is adequate bonding available.
Referral Ordinance from Township
Committee – Ordinance No. 2008-28 permitting industrial and retail uses in a
new I2A zone
indicated this is the ordinance drafted by the Planning Board that provides for
allowance of retail within the blocks and lots referenced on the attached map
along Changebridge Road
corridor. This is scheduled for adoption
by Township Committee on July 8th.
Motion made by
Gary Lewis who indicated he makes this recommendation of adoption despite the
fact it doesn’t concur with our current master plan but his feeling is that the
benefits outweigh the negatives and that we intend to correct this with our
upcoming rezoning/re-examination review.
Seconded By: Larry Hines
who owns property on Changebridge asked what the ordinance is about. Mr. Karkowsky indicated that this will be
discussed at a public hearing on July 8th at Township Committee
level which will be a public meeting. A
copy of the ordinance was given to Mr. Ulikowsky.
voiced concerns that we must go forward with insuring that the master plan for
B6 ordinance is addressed and asked Mr. Kain to discuss this issue with Mr.
Burgis since we are processing and scheduling an application within this zone
in immediate future.
Note: Mr. Canning left - Ms. Nielson present
Francisco, Bicalho – 236 Changebridge Road, B: 138.01, L: 3 Extension of
approval to May 25, 2009 Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky,
Marie Kull, Deb
Nielson, John Visco,
Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale
& Vic Canning
Motion made by: Gary Lewis
Seconded Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
of 5/22/08 – Eligible: Ladis Karkowksy,
Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco,
Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale & Vic Canning
Minutes of 6-19-08 – Eligible: Deb Nielson, John Visco,
Motion made by: Larry Hines
Seconded by: Art Maggio
Roll call: Unanimous
Michael Carroll, Esq. – O/E for:
$101.25; Trust for: $406.25,
$93.75, $33.75, $67.50, $33.75, $33.75, $540, $540, $67.50, $67.50, $101.25,
$33.75, $33.75, $67.50, $675, $67.50, $33.75, $33.75, $33.75, $67.50, $67.50
Omland Engineering – O/E for: $67.50;
Trust for: $887.50, $405,
$542.50, $67.50, $303.75, $472.50,
$101.25, $67.50, $67.50, $945,
$742.50, $202.50, $270, $135, $135, $573.75
Burgis Associates – O/E for: $600,
$240; Trust for: $240, $570,
$2,587.50, $810, $270
Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $875
Anderson & Denzler – Trust for:
Motion made by: Art Maggio
Seconded by: Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
- 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; 4/24/08;
6/12/08)– Eligible: Art Maggio, Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines,
Art Daughtry, John Visco, Tony Speciale (Alt#1), Gary Lewis,
ACT BY: 6/26/08
Sullivan, Esq. – summarized past testimony, indicating there are no variances
and request for sidewalks on one side of street under RSIS and slope exceptions.
Sworn by Mr.
Carroll. – traffic expert: Gary Anderson
stated - No objections
Traffic impact assessment reviewed and Exhibit
A4 marked in. Dated June 13, 2008
Traffic Impact Assessment.
summarized: Installed traffic recorders;
explored how he obtained his data, and trip data developed. This data is compiled from similar
developments, and assumed for this application 10 SF homes, deleting the one
existing single family home. Took this
traffic and distributed it to the surrounding roadways. Assumptions offered. Did a traffic analysis of how the traffic
will impact surrounding roadways and intersections. The other alternative is if roadway is
connected to Windsor Drive
and how will it affect roadways?
Open to board
voiced concerns with the report indicating there was speeding on Windsor and how can we
respond to this. Is parking on one side
a deterrent? Mr. Anderson indicated it
is his opinion that 24’ with parking on side is a deterrent. Mr. Lewis:
is there anything that can be done to this stretch of roadway to further
reduce speed? Mr. Anderson: Speed is an enforcement issue. An option that would work is before the Board
and that is to make a cul de sac, having no other suggestions. Mr. Lewis asked about comments offered by Mr.
Omland in his report as to installation of a traffic circle. Mr. Anderson didn’t feel it is needed to
reduce speed. But felt installing it couldn’t
Karkowsky: has been out riding in this
area and his feeling is that part of the geometry of the road makes you go slowly. Not being familiar with the road drove slowly
to begin with. Newcomers wouldn’t be
speeding on this road. Mr. Anderson: one of the ideas of traffic calming is to
make it a windy road which naturally slows people down vs. making perfectly
straight. Bend in road also helps this area.
Hines: as to Speed. If Windsor
Drive was connected, would speed increase on Windsor. Mr. Anderson:
no. Current speed average is
44mph. Mr. Anderson does not see it is
likely for a draw for more traffic.
South bound is 19 cars in peak an hour which is a worst case
Nielson: voiced concerns on speeding and
enforcement noting she would discuss this with the Chief of police.
Omland: wanted assurances that the applicant’s
expert was aware of the police department dated June 25th from Lt.
Petersen who indicated there was no accidents at this location. The police department did respond to any accident
Mr. Burgis report
of today was received late and was not sent out. Mrs. White handed it to board this evening,
as well as applicant. Mr. Kain, on
behalf of Mr. Burgis, indicated Windsor
is a minor roadway. The Master plan
discusses roadways and cul de sacs. It specifically says cul de sacs are
discouraged. It also discusses minor
streets which say it should be designed for safe and to make connection to
future streets and properties. This
master plan wording is encouraging connection between existing streets discouraging
cul de sacs. These are comments from the
(indistinguishable) lived in this area for 15-16 years. His feeling is logical: the shortest distance between two points is a
straight line. Traffic will be increased. This has existed as a cul de sac, leave it as
such. Traffic moving on Woodmont road and
opening a cul de sac will affect this tranquil area asking board members to
keep this in resident’s minds. You have to assume people drive erratically and
this neighborhood will be disturbed.
Please don’t ask for connection.
Esq. – speaking as an individual
Offered: People speed on Windsor.
Discussion ensued. He asked
traffic expert some questions on his on site inspections, his path of driving,
if he drove down Windsor, how far down from Rutledge is roadway straight, how
many times expert drove down Rutledge? Mr. Anderson answered. There
were other associates assisted with counters, the amount of time e spent on
report and his observations, noting again he did not conduct the traffic
continued to ask questions on driving down Windsor from Rutledge, is there a hill, would
there be more speed in this case, and re-examining some of the statements
contained in the Traffic Impact Statement.
asked as to issue before Board and Mr. Fleisig indicated that he would like to
retain a traffic expert on this case. He
then proceeded to ask more questions on traffic report pertaining to parking
restrictions imposed, with traffic calming devices would cars go to center of a
roadway, and what happens if you don’t slow down at curves.
request for a traffic expert was discussed with the chair indicating that there
was more than adequate time to hire a traffic expert. Discussion ensued on this report issued ten
days prior to this meeting and lack of time for his ability to get a traffic
impact statement. Discussion ensued with
Mr. Sullivan indicated that this is a protracted process with a net increase of
9 homes, starting with notice in 07, and applicant has done every thing above
and beyond; went with extended notice, and as early as Feb., the Board directed
a thru street, and this is now June, and time for traffic reports and experts
was done finalizing with the applicant didn’t want to bring a traffic expert,
and keeping with spirit of what was done, they did and the applicant objects to
any further delays to the extensive time this has been before the Board.
wants their own expert to review this subdivision feeling refusing would be
unjust. Mr. Karkowsky indicated that our
experts responded to this report. Mr.
Fleisig continued reminding board that at last meeting the Mayor asked for more
information. He felt it would be an
injustice if they were not able to get their own expert. Discussion continued
with Mr. Fleisig summarizing that he felt the applicant created a delay in
getting in traffic reports. If applicant
is entitled to present this report, and there are people here that should be
heard. Their positions and views should
indicated he felt there was more than adequate time for Mr. Fleisig to obtain a
traffic import expert. Mr. Fleisig felt
applicant was afforded ability for adjournment, and felt neighbors should be
afforded same rights.
Maria Renda - 17 Sylvan Drive – is
part of this community and ask that this road not be opened. There are kids and people who walk in this
area. They moved here because of
tranquility. She asked that the road not
be open. She stated her reasons why: she
lives here, and sees cars fly by, every house on this block has 2-3 children,
and people would be flooding down roadway. She asked that the Board not open
this road and leave as is. Woodmont Road is
curvy and will take the Windsor
cut. If you lived in this area, you
would see how dangerous it will be. What
would happen if Hilltop Care opens up? She indicated the fire dept and police
department doesn’t object, so asked that the road not be opened. .
Sullivan. The applicant came in with
proposal of a cul de sac. This was applicant’s
first choice, and it is the Board’s directive that this road be opened up. He wanted to make sure it was clear that the
applicant would prefer approval with a cul de sac being approved.
Richard…, Windsor Drive asked
the traffic expert where the counters were put?
There is really only one curve. Mr.
Anderson: South of Tudor Place – midway on straight
area. Roadway layout discussed. Measured speed at the ½ of descent. It was a flat section at base. Homeowner disagreed with report and doesn’t
feel impact is minor and asked for clarification in counts. What
are counts going down Windsor Drive? Mr. Anderson:
Southbound in AM peak, there were 7 going to 19 which is a worst case scenario. Looking at percentage, it sounds high, but
overall numbers is low. Resident felt the
cul de sc should remain. This expert
indicated there is no fix, so there is no problem, but this board is
considering a thru street that will create a problem asking the Board to allow cul
de sac to remain. He also felt that you
were lowering property values with this, felt circulation is not a problem and
why, just open it for snow plowing.
LeBlanc 14 Windsor Drive
– there are many service vehicles in the area, and many young kids going to a
Hilltop near the cul de sac. There are
young kids screaming around. The young
kids and service vehicles have no regards to neighbors. It is not neighbor’s speeding.
was asked by Ms. LeBlanc and answered the location of the recorder which was
placed at beginning of a curve after a straight line. Discussion ensued on driving near a curve and
the designation for a 25 mph roadway.
Who posted it this way? Mr.
Omland indicated this is an old road and when originally applied it was posted
at 25 mph.
asked Mr. Anderson if he took Hook
Mountain facility into
consideration, and asked if this opening and this approval would affect an
increase. Mr. Karkowsky indicated this
not relevant since te facility is accessed off another road, indicated Mr.
to volume coming down Windsor
Drive, Mr. Anderson estimated 19-20 vehicles,
discussing more details of traffic impact study and traffic counts taken. Asked about reviewing traffic at Tudor and Windsor, and why it
wasn’t looked at? Mr. Anderson felt
there was no reason to look at this sight distance. Ms. LeBlanc asked if there would potentially
be traffic coming out of Tudor onto Windsor? Mr. Anderson indicated possibly, and Ms.
LeBlanc was advised that the Planning Board directed the traffic expert what to
voiced opposition as to resident’s indicating members of this board are not
caring about children in neighborhood which is totally inaccurate.
finished with a question on a statement in report which indicated that there
would be any significant impact in opening up the road and based on what was
heard and professional conclusion, why?
Mr. Anderson: indicated felt whether roadway was opened or not is
insignificant since traffic would be no different. There is no impact on safety if cul de sac is
Drive – Syed Khalid indicated she a college professor, her grandkids play
basketball all day, and she is delighted to be here to see democracy in action
noting the people who spent time listening to both sides of issues, and thanks
the board in expressing joy and true democracy will come thru and meet the will
of people will come thru.
Jim Walsh – 42 Windsor Drive –
sounds like sight distances were measured but was anything done to look at Windsor Drive? He lives about 200 yards south where the hill
starts to drop down. Sight distance is limited
here and he has to back out of his driveway.
Mr. Anderson did not look at sight distance along this area on Windsor.
Seems that the
residents of the area and applicant want to have a cul de sac design and feels
the Planning Board should address best interest of town and a thru road is not
what people want.
asked Mr. Anderson what is the benefit the town will receive in opening up
roadway. Mr. Anderson: Nothing.
In report, figure no. 3, 2009, on this figure, shows a sketch of the
roads in the area, and in looking at this diagram, Sylvan Drive and Windsor Drive intersect and if roadways
open up, the roadway will be called Windsor
you are travelling south on Windsor
and south on Sylvan drive, who will have ROW in continuing on the thru
street. Discussion ensued on this
subject ultimately Mr. Fleisig advised that there will be traffic signage and
controls that will be imposed by the Township and which will be enforce, noting
right now this is not necessary since it is not a thru road. Once it is a thru road, it will be required.
Ulikowski –Changebridge Road
– this may be an inconvenience to some people so understands this, but we all
go thru this. Flow of traffic in this area may be the same
traffic going thru this Sylvan
The other thing is that with the the traffic on Woodmont Road, the blind
corner and lack of drainage, this cut through might take some traffic off this
road especially at intersection of Rutledge, and this might help. Mr. Karkowsky asked how many people come up
Rutledge to take Sylvan. Mr. Ulikowsky
indicated a few people that do this.
by: to close Art
Seconded: Larry Hines
Sullivan: applicant’s first choice is
cul de sac and this design is based on request of Planning Board. Regardless of this issue, he summarized
reminding board that there is relief required:
exceptions and waivers on 8 of 10 lots for slopes, and only small
portions of 15% which is unique and goes thru the center of property; majority
of waivers are for small pockets of steep slopes, ,and calls for protection of
slopes and there are drainage problems in this area. It is consistent with intent of
ordinance. RSIS request was reviewed and
Mr. Burgis finds ‘no problem’. He asked
that the Planning Board approve this subdivision, and the choice of roadway will be made, stipulating
on the record that the applicant agrees to comply with requirement of
compliance of sight triangle easements at Woodmont and new street; correct the
soil movement number on sheet 2 on note 8, indicated that in response to Ms.
Nielson, there will be no commercial truck parking/construction parked on
Woodmont Road and applicant will make sure everything is housed internally off street,
applicant will supply details of post and rail fence and will ensure there is have
mesh around it, would also comply with all agencies, states, regulations with
regards to blasting, would create a uniform travelled way, will comply with
board professionals reports, would have no soil movement, and will agree to
comply with his memo of 4/17/08 which was applicant’s response to the Required
Reports summary. He indicated if the
board wants a cul de sac, the plans on file address both designs but understand
if Board doesn’t want a thru street, there is a light modification needed and
also agrees to comply with all testimony offered, compliance with map as
submitted, subject to any revisions determined, subject to conservation
easement. In summary, requests
Daughtry: Listening to Mr. Sullivan’s
comments, indicating that the applicant is stipulating he will agree with all
comments offered to the Board during the entire subdivision hearing, and
concurs with any and all stipulations
made on record.
Lewis: before going forward, wanted to
make sure about the road width along Woodmont
Sullivan indicated the agreement is to to make this uniform at 24’. .
Daughtry: indicated he heard nothing
that changes his position and original concept where as a board we voted we
wanted it as a thru street, noting we said we would want to retain enough
property at the end as ROW deeded to Township should we need it in future. The traffic study was a result of our desire
to make sure there was no affect. He saw
nothing that changes his position.
Nielson: reviewed traffic and planner’s
report, and heard residents, and don’t want to hurt children, but traffic
counts and reports other than the speeding which she will discuss with our
police chief, feels in some small way, there will be some reduction of traffic
on Woodmont. She believes planner’s
report, and do sympathize with residents.
Lipari: agreed with Mr. Daughtry and
have same feeling.
Lewis: for the record, verified he certified
to the hearing and gave his certification to the applicant’s file. He indicated he listened to this missed meeting
when the straw poll was taken. And in looking
at site plan can understand the cul de sac and residents input, and as one that
deals with this on regular, , it is apparent that if the subject property along
Windsor was constructed at the same time as the adjoining area originally was,
this roadway would have been a thru street to Woodmont. He has
no idea what the planner’s were thinking, and if it was done at that time, it
would have been required. It is the
township’s need to do what the master plan requires, and although sympathetic
to safety, our plan says ‘don’t do this’.
The RSIS exception for sidewalks on one side is not unreasonable. Would like to have traffic engineer’s
recommendation that parking be restricted to one side and in a binding
agreement, send this as part of findings to the Township Committee that this
will be a public roadway to have parking on one side only.
Nielson: this is a new public hearing if
we do this and this would affect all of Windsor Road and many other streets in
Lewis: Having said this, and listening
to reports and testimony, he concludes that we support the application with
Art Maggio: He indicated he also took the time to drive
this area during school time, etc to investigate and review the
subdivision/roadway, indicating that as a board member you want to protect
residents and do best for the town so you have to personally evaluate and see
for yourself. In this regard, he spent
some time looking and feels that this opening of road would actually help. He also spoke with Talked to residents
outside area to see their opinion, wanting to make an educated decision. Went back to county, water, engineer and
professionals all of whom said they thought this was a better plan. Nothing this evening changed his mind.
Speciale: disagreed indicating he spent
a lot of years on Windsor Drive. If this was 500 yards or more south, there
wouldn’t be discussion at all. From fire
department end, even if opened up, they would take the same route. He leans towards people who pay taxes and
disagrees with making this a thru street preferring to see it remain as a cul
Hines: based on review of materials he
read, including reports and traffic impact, and he also has been reviewing this
area for past three months agrees with others that this should be a thru
: Offered a Motion to grant preliminary and final approval of slope
intrusions/exceptions, RSIS design exception, compliance with all testimony
offered and agreements made during board hearing, all county, federal and state
approvals, development of a DA, bonding in form and manner agreeable to
township attorney and board engineer, ROW for possible future cul de sac at end
of subject parcel, as shown on earlier versions of plans, agreement of
maintaining 24’ on Woodmont Road along frontage tapering to existing width
beyond frontage, normal applicable provisions of major subdivision
requested by Mr. Sullivan: are the two
existing ROW’s being design back to back, or are we leaving existing cul de sac
with round bulk as thru road. The Board
is requesting back to back ROW’s for future use if needed.
seconded. Question arose as to
with cul de sac bulb laying in place, with a thru street, wanted assurances
with the ROW’s and both cul de sacs, that there are no variances required
should there be a thru street in
future? Mr. Sullivan: indicated
applicant is granting easement where cul de sac proposed, understands board is asking
for a ROW, and that the improvement for the cul de sac is not going in, and
wanted to know if the front yard setbacks would be granted. His general notice provided for it. Discussion ensued on having a house location
right on top of a roadway design if you build cul de sac. Mr. Omland continued: Fix
this one house now and make it a condition of approval. Illustration:
show the thru street and give a distance of intrusion of cul de sac on
6.04. Consider giving applicant a five
minute recess and ask for specific relief.
Lot area is big enough, and front yard
setback appears to be ok, but there may be encroachment into yard.
by: Gary Lewis; seconded Art Maggio
After recess, Mr.
Sullivan indicated as to clarification, applicant will provide dedication, and requests
the setback be 25’ off the cul de sac which makes sense which prevents you from
having this house right off road feeling this would be acceptable
compromise. Variance granted for front
yard setback on 6.04. It was also
required to have a deed restriction to make sure that 6.04 have this
notification for future owners to be aware of possibility of cul de sac
Agreed by Mr.
Daughtry; Second by Gary Lewis
Roll call vote:
Art Maggio –
Tony Speciale –
Ms. Nielson –
adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by: Larry
Linda M. White
Canning left meeting early – see area noted
Certified to 2/28/08 meeting
certify to 2/28/08 meeting