MONTVILLETOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2008
Mr. Maggio - present Mr.
Karkowsky - absent
Ms. Kull -
present Mr. Daughtry -
Ms. Nielson - present Mr.
Visco - present
Mr. Lipari -
absent Mr. Lewis – present
Mr. Hines -
absent Mr. Canning (alt#2) - present
Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present
Housing Element/COAH/Master Plan –
Update – Mrs. White noted the ordinance on allocation of funds to start this work
was adopted by the Township Committee on July 22nd, so the funds are
now there. Mr. Burgis and Ms. White will
meet and set up schedules. Mrs. White
asked if we will be required to adopt the housing element before end of year in
view of litigation pending. This issue
will be explored in greater depth once schedules are coordinated as
indicated. Mr. Burgis indicated regardless
of whether or not the Township opts into COAH, you are still subject to
adoption of a Housing Element.
Mrs. White noted that the 9/25/08 Planning
Board schedule is set for discussion and review of the Aged Restricted Rezoning
Requests received. She also indicated
she met with the County on the SWP/state mapping on sewer/water
management. Regulations were adopted and
mapping is now being worked on. She
indicated that this element appears to be something that should be put in front
of rezoning reviews or reviewed as part of since based on this meeting, some of
the mapping areas may affect development.
asked Mr. Burgis about imposition of permit fees and if we are in a plan under
COAH, can we adopt an impact fee ordinance.
Mr. Burgis indicated that it cannot be done this way. Right now the 2.5% fee taken at Construction
is transferred into an urban fund. Mr.
Burgis indicated that he understands if you are compliant with COAH regulations,
you can get some monies back. Mr.
Carroll indicated this aspect should be discussed with municipal attorney.
asked about COAH asking for clarification on the collecting of impact
fees. Mr. Burgis reviewed summarizing
that for this community we need to take the 2.5% fee on industrial/commercial permits
Environmental Commission Meeting –
Highlands & ANJEC – Invitation
to Planning Board - 9/17/08 – 7PM
indicated that the chair set this meeting up and issued an open invite. Discussion ensued. The Planning Board intended to host this
meeting with the Highlands in the fall since they are required to comply with
Highlands/development issues at that level, and asked Mrs. White to discuss
cancelling Highlands’s appearance at
Environmental Commission to reschedule to Planning Board agenda in
October. Mrs. White will coordinate and
indicated that at the July 22nd meeting of the Township Committee, a
draft new height ordinance was referred to the Planning Board from Township
Committee and asked the Planning Board to review this. Mrs. White transmitted draft to Mr. Burgis
and asked he had an opportunity to review this.
reminded Planning Board that we adopted a new height ordinance last year around
this time to deal with some of the issues of lot grading and height at that
time. He indicated three items of
concern about items in this draft ordinance review. He noted the wording too vague in that it
provided wording that indicated alterations which are visual salient are not
permitted with site plan approval. As
indicated in the past, zoning ordinances have to be specific and must have
standards that have clarity to them. It
would be difficult to determine ‘visually salient’ to someone. It is not a standard that is measurable, and
therefore not a zone regulation.
It also talks
about site plan or subdivision approval to comply with the ordinance. One or two family dwellings are not subject
to subdivision or site plan. Single
Family lots are not subject to that process.
grades should not be permitted to alter height regulations was another
area. He has seen ordinances respond to
this but in limited conditions, since the question that comes into play is what
or where is ‘pre-existing’ grade. At
what point do you look at what is an existing grade?
he saw no problem with redefining cellar for the purpose of ordinance. This wording could be adjusted. But this issue isn’t worth changing our
indicated this draft ordinance was shown to Township Committee due to under
sized lots, and that the size of the houses exceeds the developments existing
in some existing lots. Are there some
changes that would safeguard any neighborhoods to control the demolition and
redevelopment of a McMansions?
Burgis: there may be ways to address
this. He indicated that clearly there is
a Board of Adjustment application pending, stressing that this board is not
empowered to get involved in this. In a
very general way, though, there can ordinances drafted that will address
concerns voiced, but this height ordinance draft will not work.
that the Planning Board and the Township Committee could though direct development
of an ordinance to deal with isolated lots and/or isolated lots where demolitions
may exist with larger homes. Ms. Nielson
indicated that this issue was visited by the Board several times, and the Board
couldn’t come up to a consensus on it. .
asked Mrs. White if we require a house is demolished and rebuilt, is a grading
permit required. These grading plans reflect existing topo. He indicated the height of new structure can
be measured from existing grade as shown on lot grading plan, and he has an
ordinance that may work that he will fax to Mr. Burgis. Board requested Mr. Burgis to present a
proposal to the Planning Board for review of this section of ordinance. Mrs. White will review with Planning Board at
the August 13th meeting of Planning Board.
PMISC08-26 Westport Corp – 331 Changebridge Rd. – B: 160.02, L: 23 –
change warehouse space to office – no additional employees – Existing 21,503
s.f.office/130,523 s.f. warehouse – propose 1,755 s.f. office space for a
result of 23,258 s.f. office/128,768 s.f. warehouse – no change in operation
Motion made by: to grant waiver subject to compliance with
agency findings, use letter and sign theme approval as stipulated by Art Daughtry, seconded by Art Maggio
PMISC08-27 Montville Hot Bagels
& Deli – 1 John Henry Dr. –
B: 135, L: 5 – 4 – Bagel bakery & deli – 4 employees – 5am-6pm – 7 days –
no signage requested at this time – no tables
summarized past reviews made by this site by Planning Board for Subway
tenancy. Ms. Kull asked what can be done
Present: Andrew Guerin, tenant
summarized that this was scheduled for courtesy to discuss whether or not the
Planning Board would allow this use to move in under a waiver. She indicated that the owner’s representative
is present, as well as tenant. The use
is a permitted use as a bagel, deli and bakery but the concern again is the
upgrading of lot/building. Mrs. White
indicated that there is a plan from the owner to completely upgrade the
interior and exterior of the building.
asked about the Dumpster on property which is presently not screened on this
property, how would that be addressed.
Mr. Guerin indicated that they will enclose this.
asked what of HVAC systems? Where would
they be located? If on the roof, they
would need to be screened.
Mr. Daughtry asked if there is a possible way to
get another exit that can be installed.
Tony Speciale indicated that there is a wall and grade drops down on John Henry Drive.
like to see this reviewed and if there is a way to enhance parking and
circulation, this would be an asset to the owner and community.
Heller Group representative of owner
asked about upgrading just building. A
copy of his proposal was distributed which reflected a marked improvement of
this site. After a general discussion,
it was indicated that there was no objection to the granting of the tenancy
with no occupancy until site plan approval was received. Motion made by: Art Daughtry,
seconded by Deb Nielson, unanimously
PMISC08-28 Ricoh – 19 Chapin Rd. – B: 184, L: 7.02 –
conversion of 2,128 s.f. of storage space to a climate controlled software and
equipment test area and demo room – no change in number of employees – no
change in operation –
summarized. This waiver was approved
unanimously in a Motion made by: Gary
Lewis, seconded by Art Daughtry
subject to compliance with agency findings, use letter and sign theme.
PMSP/F07-10 - K & K
Major Subdivision – 10 Woodmont
Road, Block: 159, L: 6 – 10.2 acre parcel into 11
lots (Ten SF) – R27A Zone – Approved 6-26-08 Eligible: Art Maggio, Ladis
Karkowsky, Deb Nielson,
Russ Lipari, Larry
Hines, Art Daughtry,
made by: Art
Daughtry seconded by: Art Maggio
Nielson, Art Maggio, Art Daughtry
and Gary Lewis – unanimous
of 6/26/08 – Ladis Karkowsky,
Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio
, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry , Larry Hines, Anthony Speciale
Subcommittee Minutes of 6-05-08 Eligible: Russ Lipari,
Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry and John Visco
Minutes of 7-10-08 Eligible: Russ Lipari,
Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry, John
Visco, Deb Nielson
unanimously in a Motion made by: Art Daughtry
and seconded by Deb Nielson
Omland Engineering – O/E for: $67.50,
$67.50, $405, $660, $540,
$573.75, $1,080.00, $33.75, $101.25
Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for:
$33.75, $708.75, $945, $67.50
Burgis Assoc. – O/E for: $270, $210,
$435; Trust for: $420, $30,
unanimously in a Motion made by: Art Daughtry
and seconded by Deb Nielson
Evangelical Lutheran Church
of the Holy Spirit – 70 River Rd. – B: 76,
L: 12.01 – pre/final site plan for construction
of parsonage – Notice Acceptable
(Note: Vic Canning stepped down from this hearing)
summarized: applicant submitted
application for preliminary and final site plan and proposes to construct a two
story parsonage on the site of existing church.
Property is on river Road and in R43A zone and is a permitted use. Variances required for exceeding the maximum
permitted building and impervious coverage and a design waiver for exceeding
maximum driveway slope in front of garage.
explained the parsonage will be accessed via new 12’ driveways off existing
parking area, and they will include proposed upgrades in landscaping and
stormwater management. They will not
touch existing conservation easement at rear.
discussed. Ms. Nielson noted there were
citizen concerns raised with this area and sidewalk beyond church near Rockaway River section. Is there a need or desire to have sidewalks
in front of the church? Mr. Burgis
indicated he meant from the dwelling to the church for a sidewalk. Is there a need for sidewalks in the
front? Mr. Kozel indicated that
sidewalks are already required for entire frontage as part of the subdivision.
was the ordinance ever finalized requiring homes to face front of the
street. Mr. Burgis indicated it was not
but given nature of this lot behind the church, this is not as critical. Discussion ensued. Mr. Burgis indicated he didn’t really feel
strongly about this need. Not
required. Applicant did agree to comply
with planner’s report.
discussed his concerns noting that the previously height ordinance we discussed
if adopted would actually render this plan non-conforming since the house is raised
10’ off groundwater, which brings height up to 35’ . Mr. Omland didn’t look to see if elevating
dwelling at 10’ would affect Meadows
Lane viewscape, but indicated wood buffer must
remain. Any new ordinance adopted on grade requirements will require this to be
built at approved tonight.
also indicated soils testing must be conducted prior to release of building
testing done. He was engineer on Moore’s subdivision. He will conduct some testing.
There will be
no tree cutting since this wooded area is contained within a Conservation
asked about the amount of fill being brought to site? Applicant advised that he will need to supply
soil quantities and if necessary may need soil movement permit from Township
asked if there will be windows in raised basement since plans reflect there are
Sworn - Vincent
that they have not proceeded with a foundation plan yet. Right
now, it reflects four feet exposed foundation.
He clarified that this will be unfinished basement space.
asked if it is safe to say delivery of the module will have access to the church
parking lot. This approval will be made
subject to compliance with all agency findings, especially that of the Traffic
Safety officer for movement of modular thru community.
indicated that the concrete exposed foundation will have landscaping plantings
to buffer it.
public…. Hearing none
by: made by Mr. Daughtry, seconded by
Mr. Lewis to grant preliminary and final site plan approval as well as the
requested variances and waivers, with the applicant agreeing to comply with all
testimony of record, compliance with the board’s professional reports rendered
to the record, normal applicable provisions of site plan approval. Roll call: John Visco, Deb
Nielson, Art Daughtry,
Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Tony Speciale, Ms. Kull – Yes
Mr. Canning returned
& C Riverside Drive Associates, LLC – Riverside Drive
Block 182, Lot 7 – Amended Site Plan
–Reconfigure of interior portion of
existing building to accommodate
additional tenants and site plan
approval to make minor changes to the parking, loading,
landscaping and points of ingress/egress
to the building ACT
Present: Mark Falender, Esq., Jos. Marra, Architect
summarized meetings held with subcommittee on modification to the
interior/exterior for loading docks to allow enhanced marketing for
Marra - Sworn
Marra reviewed the professional reports rendered. He indicated his revisions submitted indicate
he has upgraded the site to reflect compliance with Mr. Omland’s report. Mr. Marra reviewed these changes. He felt that the plans adequately reflect
report issued by Mr. Burgis. He
indicated he would address loading comments offered in Mr. Omland’s
report. Revised drawings are dated July
11th; Mr. Omland’s report dated July 24th. Mr.
Marra reviewed changes to the site, handicap accessibility and parking.
comments offered from Mr. Burgis
Omland indicated his concerns are related to items 3 and 4 of his report. He indicated he understood that these were new
entry doors proposed and wanted assurance that some elevations are provided to
ensure accessibility. He mentioned in
plans resubmitted, there was mention of a pending topo survey. This document will confirm that there is
compliance with ADA.
Also: on right hand side of drawing, plan reflects
two handicap spacing, but he sees no ADA
access. This should be located to a more
sensible location for entry points. Mr.
Marra indicated that the two spaces being referred to can be relocated across
from entrance which is accessible. The
other spaces added were as close and practical to new proposed entrances. Tenant space 2 has a new egress door. Applicant is installing a new curve ramp that
will serve to take care of 2 and 3A. The
Handicap space is 10 spaces away across from an existing handicap
entrance. This is a curb ramp and
handicap entrance. Number of parking
spaces and required number of handicap spaces are in compliance and architect did
try to locate them as accessible. The
spaces on north east upper left hand corner can be moved (2 of them). Board engineer and applicant’s professional
will work on this issue to resolve.
map and curb work: no drainage problems
should be encountered and will be addressed before construction. Applicant will submit topo survey.
Maggio asked if one tenant uses 6 loading bays.
Architectural plans are split between two tenants 2B gets 2; tenant get
3 and tenant 4 gets 2. There will be no
24’ trucks in this area, and no interruptions to travel aisle.
theme: Existing pylon sign will be used
dumpsters exist and a small compactor is used.
tenants have handicap access and this plan is being finalized by the State and
is working with construction drawings.
Nielson noted we now have ability to review in house. As tenants come in, they then may be able to go
under local review.
Speciale: asked for confirmation that
there will be a total of 8 tenants noting there is a partial 2nd
floor. Location of dumpsters
discussed: One is in loading bay at rear
of building and second one is Medco space.
These are the only one on site at this time. Applicant acknowledges they will be subject
to fire prevention bureau and will meet fire codes. Building will be fully sprinkled.
to public in a Motion made by: Gary
Lewis, seconded by Deb Nielson, hearing none closed.
by: Art Daughtry, seconded by Deb Nielson to grant amended final site plan and
existing variances as noted, subject to compliance with all agency findings,
resolution of the ADA parking areas indicated with Mr. Omland, compliance with
all testimony offered, topo survey to be submitted, normal applicable
provisions of site plan approval. Roll
call: John Visco, Deb Nielson, Art Daughtry, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Tony Speciale,
Ms. Kull & Vic Canning – Yes
indicated there are residents in the rear that haven’t come forward asking them
if they had any comments for Planning Board.
She indicated that these
residents were here during the public portion of meeting and perhaps didn’t
understand they could offer comments at that time.
Bob Moranus, Lakeview Drive
indicated that the height ordinance discussed earlier was given to Townships
Committee as a result of specific concerns from residents in Lake Valhalla
as to intrusion into a home theme and development on lots that have severe
topographic conditions, needing fill to terrace for building purposes. Mr. Burgis indicated that in writing a zoning
ordinance, wording must be specific, and that the words used in a draft given
to the township committee were not. Mr.
Moranus asked for Board’s summary of what they will be looking at. Mrs. White indicated that the planner will
give a proposal to Planning Board as to his review costs for development of an
ordinance that will respond to the non-conforming lot development as well as
development on smaller lots and/or in fill lots that may be conforming by
demolition with new McMansions. General
unanimously adjourned in a Motion made by:
Gary Lewis and seconded by Deb Nielson
Linda M. White