Plannig Board Minutes 9-11-08 Print E-mail

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

With explanation

With explanation

 

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 01 October 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack