MONTVILLETOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2008
Mr. Maggio -
absent Mr. Karkowsky - present
Ms. Kull -
present Mr. Daughtry - present
Ms. Nielson - present Mr.
Visco - absent
Mr. Lipari -
absent Mr. Lewis - present
Mr. Hines -
present Mr. Canning (alt#2) –
Speciale (alt#1) – absent
public. Other discussion items moved to
end of meeting.
Review of Proposal from J.
Burgis: review of Non-Conforming Use/Lot Ordinance - $1000 cost – look at these ordinances.
summarized: the Planning Board at their
last meeting asked Mr. Burgis to develop a cost estimate for his reviews of the
ordinance responding to the concerns raised by the residents in conjunction
with a Board of Adjustment application.
Mr. Burgis indicated that there other areas of the ordinances he would
like to review relative to this and he would hope to have this memo given to
the Planning Board for the 9-25-08 meeting of the Board. Mrs. White indicated that the estimate given
was for $1,000 and since this would be part of the Master Plan/Ordinance
updates, she would charge this against that line item.
Ron Morianes indicated
he would like to have the Planning Board develop some type of control for those
homes that are too high where the terrain is altered in order to create
development of a home. Mrs. Nielson
indicated that we are concerned about these issues, undersized lots and that
the reason for Mr. Burgis’ involvement is that as a Township we should look to
see how we can, if possible by ordinance, address any adverse impact from
development that may change a character of a neighborhood indicating we would
want to safeguard a lot that is not in character with this type of
situation. Discussion ensued. Mr. Morianes summarized Board of Adjustment review,
asking Board if he received his correspondence of today, which they had
summarizing he is hopeful that the Township Committee and Planning Board will
stop this application. Mr. Burgis: explained the approval process at Board of
Adjustment noting that at this point this issue can go forward. Ms. Nielson: noted that Board of Adjustment has made a
decision that is subject to compliance with outstanding conditions. Gary Lewis:
confirmed no appeal is made to Township Committee. Mr. Omland:
indicating that a condition of this approval is that the soil movement
item is before a township committee, the soils stability, stabilization,
roadway use is all part of a soils hearing which is totally subject to the Township
Committee jurisdiction. Voiced concerns
on a Board of Adjustment hearing and proofs submitted concerned that an
objector doesn’t have to present more information vs objectors feeling that
there was no balancing done at that level.
Mr. Lewis confirmed that it is not in this board’s purview to do
something about a Board of Adjustment issue.
Mrs. White explained about resolution being a memorization of action
taken, and various appeals processes.
Discussion ensued resulting in a Motion made by: Gary Lewis and seconded
by Larry Hines authorizing the Planning Board engineer and planner to review
the soil movement ordinance and/or any other ordinances that may respond to the
concerns raised. Roll call: Unanimous
of August 28th Planning Board meeting: Mrs. White noted that the Planning Board
agreed to cancel the August 28, 2008 meeting which has been done.
North American Video (Halifax
26 Chapin Rd. Unit 1105 – B: 183, L: 7.1 – office
3,200 s.f./ warehouse 3,300 s.f. for electronic equipment – 5 employees – hours
of operation 8am-5pm Mon-Fri – signage to be in compliance with approved theme
made to approve made to approve subject to compliance with agency findings and
use letter, as well as sign theme made by: Larry Hines Seconded by:
Marie Kull Roll call: Unanimous
PMISC08-30 Toys R Us – 10 New Maple Ave. – B: 171, L: 14 – expansion of existing office space by
675 s.f. (currently 9,000 s.f. office/13,000 s.f. warehouse) – 12 additional
employees (1 existing for a total of 22) – no change in hours of operation –
currently 40 parking spaces allotted.
made to approve made to approve subject to compliance with agency findings and
use letter, made by: Deb Nielson,
Seconded by: Larry Hines
of 7/24/08 – Eligible: John Visco, Deb
Nielson, Art Daughtry,
Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Tony Speciale, Ms. Kull, Victor Canning
Motion made by: Art Daughtry
Roll call: Unanimous
Burgis Assoc – O/E for: $150, Trust
for: $480, $570, $30, $240,
$270, $540, $90
Anderson & Denzler – Trust for:
Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for:
Omland Engineering – Trust for: $270,
$405, $540, $168.75, $438.75, $540
by: Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
– San Dol Korean Presbyterian Church Site plan, 356 Changebridge Road, Block 160, Lot 3 - Notice Acceptable
ACT BY: 10/4/08
Sworn in Mr. Chin,
existing church operations and reason for proposed expansion approval, noting
there are no formal classroom facilities existing. The proposal is for addition and alterations
to an existing house of worship located at 356 Changebridge Road. The 2.16 acre site
is identified as Block 160 Lot 3 according to municipal Tax Records. It is located in the OB-1 Office Building
Zone, wherein places of worship are a permitted principal use. The proposed improvements include a 10,740
sq. ft. two story meeting hall, an additional 17 parking spaces, stormwater
management improvements, a basketball court and removal of an existing dwelling
Lewis: Fire department is asking if a Knox
box isn’t put in for emergency service, to agree to put this in. Applicant will comply with this directive.
Kull: the house on site will be removed
as part of this house. Applicant
Cutillo, Architect – sworn and credentials accepted
plans prepared. A1 plan reviewed. The extensions and reasons for this design
discussed by Mr. Cutillo stating it would be similar materials. Reason for two stories is due to grade. Lower level will be buried into grade. On right the rear elevation shows the new
part of the building and left side of the building shows the existing
building. On site plan there is a large
slope so parking elevation is more up towards upper level. Last view depicts front along Changebridge
has slope going up to back. This shows
characteristic of this building.
Materials will be to try and blend together and will use natural and
earth tone colors to blend together and will be carried some of the base of
building into the new proposed building.
plans discussed indicating what exists today and the most recent addition which
is the new vestibule. Kitchen area will
be removed from this area Deb Nielson
new kitchen will be put in lower level of the new addition. Making way thru the building which need to go
thru the main sanctuary and will come to the new addition which will have a
nice size gathering room for church services, and updating club facilities and
storage areas and mechanical areas. There
will be two means of egress will be developed within. Board
of Health report dated July 2008 indicates various conditions required and
applicant will comply with this report.
floor plan reviewed and there are no existing features of existing features
that are in this area. This upper level
is same size of lower level and consists of classrooms what will be here for
access and emergency services. One exit goes to grade in parking area. Mr. Dixon indicated there was an exterior
stairwell which leads to a retaining wall.
From the lower level close to the new addition but at existing building
so are coming out lower level and goes up slope to what is existing and
connects to parking lot area. If you
come out back you have to walk around to entrance of parking lot and it is a
long walk. Applicant indicated they are proposing a stair way which is
completely outside. Slope of embankment
is a different pitch.
drawing displayed. Review of the parking
lot at the back of the building which exists today. Primarily this entire parking area exists and
putting this addition anywhere else would destroy something that exists. If extension was placed further into grade,
there would be no ability to walk out to second floor.
Daughtry: Stated that the DRC review and
approval will be a condition of review. He noted he understands the topography and the
concerns voiced voicing concern about the height from this elevation and
concerns with visibility. Discussion
ensued. Mr. Dixon indicated that this
height would be buffered in view of location and that the addition is connected
to a building that has a non-conforming front yard setback.
Nielson: what is the assumed ROW on
Changebridge? Mr. Burgis: suggested the building height be
reviewed. Mr. Cutillo indicated: The height of building is only 23’ and the
average is only 29’ and is under 30’. Mr.
Burgis responded the way the ordinance is measured; you are required to go out
10’ out and 20’ intervals. This height
has to be 30’. Discussion ensued. Mr. Dixon feels there is no variance. Mr. Burgis:
noted his concern that the applicant’s architect suggested an incorrect
building height referenced, questioning whether measurement is correct. Applicant indicated if there is a variance,
will conform to the ordinance and eliminate accordingly.
Karkowsky asked what would be impact if this building was moved back to the 50’
setback. Mr. Cutillo noted further moving
to rear yard would mean higher elevation.
Existing building layout is so far to front and if the addition moved
back, it wouldn’t’ tie together for circulation of use and the architectural
façade would be affected.
Lewis: the technical review comments
dated July 8, 2008 were issued some five weeks ago, yet he questioned why there
were no revised plans reflecting upgrades of any of these comments. If ROW width can affect everything going forward
and this was one of Mr. Omland’s comments, why wouldn’t this be resolved? Mr. Dixon: when plans were submitted for various
comments, the applicant was waiting for all their input and didn’t wish to
undertake other revisions from other agencies.
Board’s policy on revisions was explained as to technical comments being
addressed before coming to Planning Board hearing process. As to the ROW, there are a few comments that
can be resolved
professionals were sworn.
Darmofalski -PE – accepted credentials -
the County ROW noting that the professional report
requested that the ROW and pavement widths be depicted, reviewing the ROW areas
noting along Rt. 80 is 66’ and in this area the ROW is 44’. He indicated he spoke to county and that they
have no intention of taking any addition ROW. He indicated that there is varying
ROW and asked about whether or not the County would take this ROW in
anticipation. Would like to see
something here in writing, and want assurances there would be no taking of ROW
indicated Mr. Daughtry. Applicant requested to provide this to the Township
from the County.
is no sidewalk proposed and this should be addressed indicated Ms.
Nielson. We are looking to see more of a
neighborhood theme. Mr. Omland: could you not push the new addition further
into the site. Mr. Darmofalski: it would plunge building deeper into soil. Discussion
ensued about review of grading plan, pushing structure back, increasing setback
in this area. Mr. Darmofalski indicated
you can engineer anything but you would have to use retaining walls to accomplish. He indicated the purpose of this layout was
for the interior layout and topo as there is 12’ of grade differential, and
there is a raised parking lot, noting that they are burying first floor below
Lewis: has the applicant looked to see
if there is anyway this lot and adjacent lot could be resolved to get emergency
access. Mr. Dixon indicated that the proposal
request to the church was for a more permanent access. This property owner did not want permanent
access going thru property. They are not objecting to an emergency access. Still have no problem with an emergency
roadway in rear of parking lot. Applicant
will not give permanent easement rights.
Gary Lewis: look at this on
revision in future. Mr. Dixon indicated
he feels it is something that the applicant adjacent should do vs. this
church. These two properties are being
built side by side, continued Mr. Daughtry, and this alternate access is for
the benefit of the future occupants of this town. It is not just for this applicant. Mr. Karkowsky: it was the township’s concern not the
applicant. Mr. Dixon: expressed that there is space available and
in one of earlier sketch laid out some sort of path, but adjacent applicant expressed
that the need was for a permanent access.
Mr. Omland: indicated he doesn’t think it is this applicant’s design and
understood that it is the adjacent property required to engineer it. Mr. Daughtry:
the other applicant has more of a financial requirement and suggested
that our board engineer make some suggestions to both parties how the access
may work so that designs will. Mr.
Omland: this was discussed and to
facilitate this we should have both applicants at a staff meeting in town hall
and look at this connection and that way they can be done at the same time. The meeting was scheduled for 9AM on
9-11-08. Both applicants present agreed.
application carried with notice to meeting of October 9, 2008 with notice
preserved and time to act extended on record.
made by: Art
Daughtry Seconded: Deb Nielson
call: Victor Canning, Larry Hines, Marie
Kull, Art Daughtry, Deb Nielson, Ladis Karkowksy
Residency – Preliminary & Final Site
plan – 17 Hook Mountain Road
- Notice Acceptable
ACT BY: 11/18/08
Present: Mr. Schepis
history of project noting this site was the subject of a motel application and
is still pending in courts for site plan of this use. Since the denial in fall of 2005 the site has
been changed to a new OB1A zone which permits aged restricted housing in this
zone. This plan was developed based on
this and meets the zoning code adopted.
The site plan remains the same as the hotel application reviewed
previously as to circulation except that the building became larger to provide
amenities and during rezoning hearings, some of the board members look at parking
and voiced concerns about this and lack of amenities. This plan now provides for underground
parking as well as an indoor swimming pool.
The Ordinance is 28 units, which this site provides for, one of which is
for the caretaker. There is only one
variance requested. Signs are prohibited
and one sign is proposed at entrance similar to Montville
sections are also required. These are
the same as hotel design waivers previously asked. Water and sewer will be provided. This is an overview presentation only. Mrs. White indicated these projects were
scheduled together to look at the possibility of marrying the two sites
together. Mr. Schepis reviewed the
history of meeting with San Dol Korean Church noting that the applicant looked
for permanent and/or emergency access. He
indicated they met with principals about two years ago and met with the elders
and discussed alternatives. There was no
legal prohibition in deeds to prohibit this.
He received a letter indicating they wanted neither of them. He felt the easement should be issued to Montville Township with a clear path for fire
department/ambulance. He felt the Board
should make it simple: ask that the
applicant provide an access easement to Montville Township
from San Don and that the applicant is to provide viable travelled past from
this lot to adjacent site.
PE – sworn
property. There will be some blasting. The
roadway is designed for fire truck specifications. Parking is underneath building with 33 under
and 33 outside of building. Hook Mountain
access road discussed: DOT has
jurisdiction ½ way along this road. Applicant
has a DOT access permit as designed. Road is designed at 10% grade. At motel, this design was limited by
township. It is now RSIS allows 12%,
maintained 10% up access drive approximately 600’ at 10%. Applicant will need soil movement permit from
Township Committee. Sign variance required.
Also needs design waiver for access drive
regulations discussed and will be adhered to. Discussion ensued. This issue will be discussed at a later
Daughtry: will not want to see this
project go forward without a rendering and/or a cross section of what it will
look like from Changebridge Road
for both sites. Mr. Omland indicated he
would ask a church to do a site section from Changebridge thru San Dol, and do
a site drawing from this site’s element.
Ms. Nielson: topo is off – coordinate both since these
sites are adjacent
Owner – Sworn
meeting with adjacent owners.
Lewis: COAH and 3rd round
rules discussed. Mr. Burgis
elaborated. One of requirements is that
density permitted is increased because of the ordinance to permit low/moderate
housing. Have an increase to accommodate
would be entitled to pick up 5-6 units to meeting on site. To accommodate the 20%, you end up with more
Burgis: original 3rd round rules
talk to allowing 1:1 increase for every affordable, you get an additional
unit. With June 16th rules,
this provision was eliminated. Mr.
Daughtry: this is a legal debate. There is an application before this board,
and we can rule on it and the state says he can’t do it, he can sue the
state. Mr. Burgis: this will be discussed at a later date, but
the bottom line is the current rules will require this municipality to provide
for what today’s rules provide for: It
is a municipal obligation. You must
provide housing since we do not have a fee impact ordinance.
application carried with notice preserved to October 9th agenda and
time to act extended on record to : October 31, 2008
made by: Gary Lewis; Seconded: Larry Hines Roll call: Victor Canning, Larry
Hines, Marie Kull, Art Daughtry, Deb Nielson, Ladis Karkowsky
indicated that there are concerns with lack of zoning enforcement and follow thru
on major violations, noting concerns with George’s which is still open. He indicated he has asked Mrs. White to
prepare a list of items that are outstanding and the follow up/compliance dates
and send this to the Board. Mrs. White
noted she sent the zoning enforcement section from Monthly report, but will do
a zoning write up next week and send out.
Mr. Daughtry indicated the
concern in the township is that commitments are made but not fulfilled. Mrs. White understands what is being asked
and will gather the info and send out.
mentioned dumpsters stored outside as well as Ms. Nielson.
and painting of windows also mentioned.
Mrs. White understands concerns.
Her date for compliance on George’s is September 2nd for site
plan compliance. Ordinances are great
but if no police powers, it is a waste.
clarification given to the board professionals to review the undersized
lots/steep slopes/soil movement – top of hill – lot of soil movement: Look at multi-prong approach. This is on for Sept. 25th agenda.
unanimously in a motion by Gary Lewis
Seconded by Art Daughtry
Linda M. White
Note: Meeting of August 287th cancelled
Board meeting: 9-11-08