Planning Board minutes 8-14-08 Print E-mail

MONTVILLETOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2008

ROLL CALL

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) – present

                                      Mr. Speciale (alt#1) – absent

Also Present:

Stan Omland, PE

Joe Burgis, Planner

Carl Lewis, Esqs.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

No public.  Other discussion items moved to end of meeting.

PLANNING BUSINESS

          Review of Proposal from J. Burgis:  review of Non-Conforming         Use/Lot Ordinance - $1000 cost – look at these ordinances. 

Mrs. White 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

Cancellation 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.

WAIVERS

          PMISC08-29 North American Video (Halifax Security) –

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

Motion 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.

Motion made to approve made to approve subject to compliance with agency findings and use letter, made by: Deb Nielson, Seconded by:  Larry Hines

Roll call:   Unanimous

RESOLUTIONS

None

         

CORRESPONDENCE

None

MINUTES

Minutes 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

Seconded  Deb Nielson

Roll call:  Unanimous

INVOICES

          Burgis Assoc – O/E for: $150, Trust for: $480, $570, $30, $240,

$720, $270, $540, $90

          Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $540, $297.50

          Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $62.50, $67.50

          Omland Engineering – Trust for: $270, $1,518.75, $67.50,

$843.75, $405, $540, $168.75, $438.75, $540

Motion made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded Gary Lewis

Roll call:  Unanimous

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

None

OLD BUSINESS

None

         

NEW BUSINESS

          PSPP/FC07-02 – San Dol Korean Presbyterian Church Site plan,         356 Changebridge Road, Block 160, Lot 3        - Notice Acceptable

ACT BY: 10/4/08

Present:

Dave Dixon, Esq.

Mr. Dixon summarized.

Sworn in Mr. Chin, Church Coordinator/Manager   

Summarized 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 unit. 

Gary 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.

Ms. Kull:  the house on site will be removed as part of this house.  Applicant confirmed.

Js. Cutillo, Architect – sworn and credentials accepted

Reviewed 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.

Floor 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. 

Second 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. 

Engineer 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. 

Mr. 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. 

Ms. 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. 

Mr. 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.

Gary 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. 

The 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

Board professionals were sworn.

Paul Darmofalski  -PE – accepted credentials - sworn

Reviewed 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. 

There 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 grade. 

Gary 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.

This application carried with notice to meeting of October 9, 2008 with notice preserved and time to act extended on record.

Motion made by:  Art Daughtry  Seconded:  Deb Nielson

Roll call:  Victor Canning, Larry Hines, Marie Kull, Art Daughtry, Deb Nielson, Ladis Karkowksy

          PSPP/FC05-02-08-07 Montville Residency – Preliminary & Final        Site plan – 17 Hook Mountain Road     - Notice Acceptable

                                                                             ACT BY: 11/18/08

Present:  Mr. Schepis

Reviewed 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 and/or Chelsea sign.

Design 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. 

Marc Walker, PE – sworn

He described 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

COAH regulations discussed and will be adhered to.   Discussion ensued.  This issue will be discussed at a later hearing. 

Mr. 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

Pat Viswathan, Owner – Sworn

Explained meeting with adjacent owners. 

Gary 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 units.

Mr. 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. 

This application carried with notice preserved to October 9th agenda and time to act extended on record to : October 31, 2008 

Motion made by:  Gary Lewis; Seconded:  Larry Hines Roll call: Victor Canning, Larry Hines, Marie Kull, Art Daughtry, Deb Nielson, Ladis Karkowsky

Public Discussion

Mr. Daughtry 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. 

Mrs. Kull mentioned dumpsters stored outside as well as Ms. Nielson.

Window signs 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.

Further 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.

CONCEPTS

None

Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion by Gary Lewis

Seconded by Art Daughtry

Respectfully

Linda M. White

Note:  Meeting of August 287th cancelled

Next Planning Board meeting:  9-11-08

 

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 16 September 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack