|
MONTVILLETOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2008
No New Business to be Conducted Past
l0: 00PM
ROLL CALL
Mr.
Maggio - Present Mr. Karkowsky - present
Ms.
Kull - present Mr.
Daughtry – present
Ms.
Nielson - present Mr. Visco - present
Mr.
Lipari - present Mr. Lewis
- absent
Mr.
Hines - present Mr.
Canning (alt#2) - absent Mr. Speciale (alt#1) – present
Also Present:
Carl Nelson,
Esq. for Mike Carroll, Esq.
Kevin Kain,
Planner for Burgis Assoc.
Stan Omland,
Engineer
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF
COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION
None from
public
Mr. Lipari
voiced concerns on Rockline site indicating there were at least 3 tractor
trailer box trucks parked out in the front of the parking lot. Discussion ensued. It was felt that the owner should be
contacted and informed that this type of outdoor storage is not permitted. There should be enough rear area to locate trailers
in this area.
PLANNING
BUSINESS
Tentative Schedule for Meeting with Highlands Council – October 23rd Regular Meeting
Mrs. White
asked if the Planning Board wanted clarification as it relates to the
confirming if they wish the Highlands to
attend and discuss their legislation with our board. Mr. Omland indicated that the Governor signed
the legislation and is now integrating programs between Highlands’s
legislation and DEP legislation.
Discussion ensued. It was felt
that we should have Mr. Mazzaccaro, citizens, Montville Messenger notices. The Governor also signed an executive order
that indicates if there is a water supply deficient, you will not get a DEP
permit, and if we do a project in the Highlands,
and there is a water deficiency, there will not be an approval. Only signed recently, and there are
irregularities in the Highlands and Governor’s
order. If we are reviewing an
application and there is no water, then it is a subject to condition, similar
to Pio Costa project. If there is a true
moratorium, then it is a different thing.
Mr.
Daughtry: majority of our properties are
in planning area, these applicants if they receive approval, do they need to
get to Highlands? Highlands
regulate planning area, but Governor says where there is a water deficient, in
a planning area if this occurs, won’t get a DEP approval even tough DEP hasn’t
conducted this study. Governor crossed
over into Highlands making it non Highland’s
jurisdiction.
List of
questions that we can ask Highland’s as it
pertains to our community to be prepared by Mr. Omland and send to Highland’s.
Planning Board
members asked to move the regularly scheduled 7:30PM meeting to an earlier
start of 7:00PM to accommodate this presentation and to invite other boards and
committee/department heads to this meeting.
Secretary was requested to coordinate accordingly.
Tentative
schedule for meeting with Morris County Planning Board on State/County Solid Waste Management Plan firmed up to
October 6th with an earlier start of 7:00PM. Invitation should be extended to Mr.
Mazzaccaro and Township Committee since this mapping does affect our future
master plan re-examination. Secretary
will provide notice and invites accordingly.
WAIVERS
PMISC08-31 American Fuji – 10 Old Bloomfield Ave. – B: 160.1, L: 10 – office (3,200 s.f.)/warehouse (12,700
s.f.) for demonstration,
refurbishing and distribution of new and pre- owned
shrink sleeve equipment and related parts – 8am-6pm Mon- Fri – no outdoor storage – 20 employees – signage to be in compliance with approved theme
(Karczynski)
Motion
to approve made by: Russ Lipari
Seconded
by: Art Daughtry
Roll
call: Unanimous
PMISC08-32 Fuji Star Coated Abrasives – 43 Rt. 46 Suite 701 – B: 183, L: 7.1- Office (1,330
s.f.)/warehouse (5,670 s.f.) for sandpaper – 5 employees – 8:30am-5pm Mon-Fri –
signage to be in compliance with approved theme (First Industrial)
Motion
to approve made by: Art Daughtry
Seconded
by: Art Maggio
Roll
call: Unanimous
PMISC08-33 KMC Mechanical – 3 Mars Ct. Unit 3-4 – B: 3. L: 38.04 –
office (975 s.f.)/warehouse (5,562 s.f.) for mechanical contractors – hours of
operation 8am-4:30pm Mon-Fri – 4 employees – signage limited to lettering on
front and doors (Urmston Realty)
Motion
to approve made by: Larry Hines
Seconded
by: Russ Lipari
Roll
call: Unanimous
PMISC08-34 MDTV Medical
News Now - 3 Mars Ct. Unit
3-3N – B: 3. L: 38.04 – office (1,189 s.f.)/storage (646 s.f.) – sale of
airtime for TV production – 3 employees – hours of operation 9am-5pm Mon-Fri -
signage limited to lettering on front and doors (Urmston Realty)
Motion
to approve made by: Art Daughtry
Seconded
by: Larry Hines
Roll
call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
PSPP/FC08-08 Evangelical Lutheran Church
of the Holy Spirit – 70 River Rd. – B: 76, L: 12.01 – Approval
Resolution for pre/final site plan
for construction of parsonage - Eligible: John Visco, Deb Nielson, Art
Daughtry, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Tony Speciale, Ms. Kull
Motion
to approve made by: Art Daughtry
Seconded
by: Art Maggio
Roll
call: Unanimous
C & 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 - Roll call: John Visco, Deb Nielson, Art Daughtry,
Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Tony Speciale, Ms. Kull & Vic Canning
Motion
to approve made by: John Visco
Seconded
by: Art Maggio
Roll
call: Unanimous
CORRESPONDENCE
None
MINUTES
Minutes of 8/14/08 - Victor Canning, Larry Hines, Marie
Kull, Art Daughtry, Deb Nielson, Ladis Karkowsky
Motion
to approve made by: Art Daughtry
Seconded
by: Larry Hines
Roll
call: Unanimous
INVOICES
Omland
Engineering – Trust for: $240, $970, $135, $506.25,
$1,316.25 (Pine Brook Investments),
$397.50, $405, $67.60,
$337.50, $1,215.00 (Pine Brook
Investments), $978.75,
$911.25
Burgis
Assoc. – Trust for: $540
Michael
Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $33.75, $33.75, $67.50, $33.75,
$33.75,
$33.75, $67.50, $33.75, $67.50, $303.75, $67.50, $33.75, $33.75, $303.75,
$33.75
Anderson
& Denzler – Trust for: $202.50
Johnson,
Murphy – Trust for: $75
Motion
to approve made by: John Visco
Seconded
by: Larry Hines
Roll
call: Unanimous
LOI/DEP
NOTIFICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
PSPP/FC98-19-07-19 RBR
Investments B: 160.02,
L: 18 - 321 Changebridge Road
– amended preliminary/final site plan w/parking variance – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 9/12/08
Present: Rosemary
Stone-Dougherty, Esq.
Ben Guardiosi, Applicant
Frank Matarazzo, PE
Ms. Dougherty
summarized existing site location, noting that the building is currently occupied
by five tenants all of which have some involvement in either health and/or
fitness. The applicant seeks amendment
of the site to provide for better ingress and egress and to redistribute
parking to allow for better use of the building.
Frank Matarazzo, PE
– sworn
Mr. Nelson
sworn the applicant’s engineer, Mr. Matarazzo as well as the Planning Board professionals.
Mr.
Lipari: Exhibit A, the interior building
floor plan submitted with the applicant, reflects there are 9 tenants which is
how parking calculations were conducted. This appears inconsistent with the five tenants
previously stipulated. Ms. Dougherty indicated that the plan reflects
that there could be as many as 9 tenants, thus parking analysis conducted on
that aspect, but will clarify the number of existing tenants at future
meetings.
Ms. Dougherty
indicated that this evening there will be no parking expert available. She indicated that the report submitted by
Mr. Staiger (traffic engineer) is only for one day of study, noting Mr. Staiger
did conduct additional counts and would testify in accordance with these
additional studies. .
EXHIBIT: A1 – colored version of the grading plan –
sheet 3 of 6 – marked in as evidence. Plan reflects pavement and grass
area.
Mr. Benjamin
Gaudiosi – sworn – owner
Answering Mr.
Lipari’s question on why this plan was presented vs. demo as originally
reviewed at a subcommittee meeting, she explained she understood unit 1 was an
area of discussion at a conceptual review level. The applicant subsequently reviewed this
aspect, but due to economics of site, the applicant filed a plan for amended
parking vs. demolition, and took the board professional comments into play by
removing a proposed second row of parking along front as well as some coverage
issues in rear of site, where there is flooding issues.
There are 7 variances
on this site, and Ms. Dougherty summarized:
there are pre-existing variances on building coverage, FAR and
impervious coverage. Maximum
Building Lot
Coverage is at 32.67% where only 25% permitted. FAR only allows 20% and over
that amount also; Impervious coverage is 71.25% where 55% permitted, proposed
73.66% is a new variance; zone line runs down center of Changebridge and this
property is I2 while across the street is the R27D. A variance for parking is required due to
location of parking in front from this residential zone. Applicant currently has 102 parking spaces on
site, and based on zoning analysis need 270, the applicants are proposing
114. Variance is part of an existing
change which requires 20’ where 13’7 is provided and size of stall is 9x18 with
a mix on the property for 9x18 vs. 9x20 for 12 new spots and some rambling thru
site.
Ms. Dougherty
was asked if the applicant had proceeded with removal of Unit 1 which is 7500
sq. ft., would this structure be more in line with code requirements. Mr. Matarazzo indicated affirmatively noting
it would be more in line with code.
Mr. Matarazzo
indicated the property is in floodplain of Rockaway River. Applicant wanted to redistribute parking
this be enough to better distribute.
Total net benefit of changes would be 12 additional spaces.
Ms. Dougherty
indicated she reviewed the resolution of approval from over a year ago and that
this plan provides for all of the site issues that were required to be
installed by the applicant: street
lighting and landscaping and signage would be identical, indicating that the
applicant stipulated he would agree to all prior conditions in previous
resolutions.
Mr. Visco
voiced concerns indicating that this plan is not what the Board had hoped to
see, and that what the applicant is proposing, the subcommittee unanimously
indicated that they would prefer another plan.
Mrs. White
summarized subcommittee findings. Ms.
Dougherty indicated the applicant is not in a position to provide demolition at
this time. This application is to
address this site to find a plan that redistributes parking, improves exterior,
and improves drainage, as well as to create large better units. Given location of this building, and history
of change that occurs in area, these recreational health and fitness use is a
better mix.
Mr. Lipari
congratulated the applicant, since this is something we all agree with, noting
that the applicant has been treated very well by this Planning Board who has
also been cooperative in doing all we can to provide help to this
applicant. Mrs. Stone indicated as to
the demo, the applicant did not have an opportunity to review the impact
demolition would create, wasn’t represented by counsel at the time, and wasn’t
in the position to fully appreciate what this meant, noting since then there
have been changes in economy impacting this owner also. It is reality of what occurred.
Discussion
ensued on concerns relative to the extensive number of times the Planning Board
has worked with and met with this applicant helping him to develop this
site. The applicant has been before this
board for many years, and perhaps if he didn’t have the ability to decide
issues with the Planning Board, then he should have stipulated at that time
since reviewing this plan at this time is upsetting.
Mr. Karkowsky
agreed. Our cooperation was based on
promises and representations made by the applicant, and we have worked with the
applicant on his tenants, always acknowledging that there were problems that
existing with parking on this site. The
applicant didn’t have to agree to the demolition and should have stipulated
accordingly.
Mrs. White
indicated that she has been receiving interest from a potential liquor store tenant
who was interested in wholesale/retail sales.
This would also affect parking and if this is a viable tenancy, then the
site should take this into consideration when amending and/or addressing
parking needs. Ms. Dougherty summarized
there is no contract for this future tenant.
Purpose of the
site plan is for parking area in front of building and to redistribute parking
to bring to the front as well as a connection between two existing driveways in
the front, per Ms. Dougherty.
Health
Departments commented on dumpster placement location, and applicant indicated
that they would relocate dumpster to another side. Mrs. White asked that some type of plan be
developed in view of number of tenants and control of dumpsters on site.
Ms. Kull asked
for clarification as to the distance between front of property from back of
cars to grass. Mr. Matarazzo indicated
that from curb to ROW is 13’. Travel
lane is 24’ for two way traffic. Both
are two ways in and out.
Mr. Speciale
asked if the fences shown on drawings exist.
Mr. Matarazzo answered affirmatively and that the gate was chain
link. Mrs. White indicated applicant
should check fence ordinance should additional variances be required.
Mr. Karkowsky
asked about the parking calculations and tenants as listed on front page? Do these tenants actually exist since there
are some names shown that are not recorded at our level? Mr. Matarazzo indicated the plans were revised
July 25th 2008; Unit 1 is a proposed tenant. In parking study, existing tenants are
reflected. August 15th
parking study reflects all existing tenants.
Mr. Maggio in
reviewing the site plan indicates he cannot get the parking numbers to add up
to 114 parking numbers.
Mrs. White
asked for assurances that all streetscape lighting is shown as the applicant’s
responsibility for costs and maintenance.
Applicant directed that this is his responsibility and must be totally
on applicant’s property.
Applicant also
requested to review all dumpster locations, and answer if they will be tenant-owned
dumpsters or landlord responsibility.
Discussion
ensued on circulation for handicap spaces?
Mr. Guardiosi indicated that the dumpster will be paid for by tenants
and will be by same vendor. Mr.
Karkowsky indicated that more tenants amount to more dumpsters, thus this
aspect of site as well as recycling should be addressed. Ms. Dougherty indicated owner contemplates
taking over dumpster issues in a lease.
This
application was carried with notice preserved to November 6th agenda
with time to act extended on record.
Motion made
by: made Russ Lipari
Second: Larry
Hines
Roll
call: unanimous
Eligible: Art Maggio, Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deb
Nielson, John Visco, Art Daughtry, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale
Note: Vic
Canning & Gary Lewis must certify to missed meeting of 9-11-08
PSPP/FC -08-03 –
PINEBROOK INVESTMENT
(Shoppes @ Montville) Block: 162, Lot: 3, 4, 6, 7 – Old Bloomfield & Rt. 46 – Notice
Acceptable ACT BY: 1/9/09
Carried w/notice
to: 10/6/08 in a motion made by: Russ Lipari
Seconded by:
Art Maggio
Roll
call: Unanimous
Mr. Omland
summarized meetings he held this morning with several of the major site plan
applications: San Dol & Montville
Residency. Discussion ensued on best way
to continue to work with these applicants in order to streamline and guide the
applicant thru the site plan process. It
was decided that once the revisions to these plans are made, that the Planning
Board subcommittee meet with each of the applicants to further review site plan
changes before going forward with formal hearings. Members agreed.
CONCEPTS
None
Motion made to
adjourn made by: Art Maggio
Seconded: Tony
Speciale
Unanimous
Respectfully
submitted,
Linda M. White
|
