Planning Board Minutes 10-6-08 Print E-mail


7:00 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2008 - Monday

No New Business to be Conducted Past l0: 00PM


Mr. Maggio - absent       Mr. Karkowsky - present        

Ms. Kull - absent            Mr. Daughtry - absent

Ms. Nielson - present     Mr. Visco – present

Mr. Lipari – present       Mr. Lewis - present

Mr. Hines - present        Mr. Canning (alt#2) – absent

                                                Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - absent






No public


Presentation by Morris County Planning Board on WSP/State of NJ legislation/mapping

Christine Marra & Virginia Michelin, County Planning Board discussed the Revised Water Quality Management Planning Rules, NJDEP Wastewater Management Plan for Morris County.  Ms. Marra explained the change in approach, noting each county is designated as a WMP entity, that each municipality becomes stand-alone Chapter, noting the County works and coordinates with municipalities and sewer authorities, that the County must also consult with regional planning entities and water purveyors, and that sewer and septic are addressed under this new approach. 

Service Area mapping reviewed with Ms. Marra highlighting the NJDEP ‘sewerable’ areas map which removal of parcels of land area that are at least 25 acres in size that have either one of the following:  330’ C1 buffers, wetlands, Threatened Endangered Species Habitat 3, 4 & 5, Natural Heritage Priority Sites.  That future growth must be equal to or less than the remaining capacity of the sewage treatment plant.  This future growth is based on maximum build out using current zoning for non-urbanized municipalities as well as population projections and future non-residential development for urbanized municipalities. If maximum build-out exceeds remaining capacity, the township must:  reduce sewer service area, change zoning, eliminate Inflow and infiltration, or expand capacity of STP which requires anti-degradation analysis.

Ms. Marra continued with review the presentation discussing the general service area and septic, noting township must calculate everything outside of a sewer service area, must calculate future growth on vacant and undeveloped properties using current zoning and calculating maximum build out, must run nitrate dilution model with applicable standard for nitrate using HUC11 or HUC14 to determine maximum septic density and maximum number of future septics.  The general service area indicates that the nitrate dilution model applied reviewed.  

For outside of Highlands Region: NJDEP Statewide Standard (2.0 mg/L)

For Highlands Planning Area: choice is Highlands RMP Standards or NJDEP Statewide Standard.  For Highlands Preservation Area: must conform to Highlands RMP and NJDEP Highlands Rules (25 acre non-forested and 88 acre forested).  Presentation ended with a series of questions and answers from County Planning Board staff.  Planning Board noted their appreciation to the County for this presentation, understanding their task in reviewing the County’s final mapping based on data sent by Montville to them for further review.

Amendments re:  Soil Movement/Height/Lot Size/Fill – rescheduled to October 23, 2008 meeting

Regular Meeting Follows…

Mr. Lipari asked about the post office in Towaco, indicating the problem with their garbage and recycling bins not being enclosed.  Can they be regulated?  Mrs. White indicated that they are tenants in many cases, not owing land outright.  Mrs. White will ask Mr. Petrillo to investigate and address.  Mr. Carroll indicated if there was no cooperation in clearing up this issue, that a quick call to a congressman may help get this addressed.  Mr. Karkowsky asked that the zoning officer meet with each postmaster to have this solid waste issue addressed.

Gary Lewis:  in light of this presentation this evening, he questioned if the Planning Board shouldn’t recommend to the Township that we inventory any lots in the sanitary sewer area based on the information from the County presented, made our own analysis on a sampling and determine what actual impact should be.  Deb Nielson:  The governing body will be asking to see this also.  This is an important map and will be a blueprint for development and/or lack thereof for the future.  This map should be reviewed, indicating that she saw at least one municipal owned property that the community has plans on.  We need to look at this and make sure.

Deb Nielson:  the issue of opting into Highlands, the difference in formulas that can be used discussed. If we opt out, we can use more liberal numbers.  COAH regulations are another issue.  Mr. Burgis:  there was an order to direct all of these entities (COAH, DEP, Highlands) to get together and resolve the conflicts between agencies.  Michael Carroll summarized Highland’s and objectives of proposal of Highlands’ and what were COAH’s involvements.  Governor at that junction didn’t know what to do at that time.  114 say if there is an argument between COAH and Highlands, Highland’s rules win as it relates to adversely affecting water.  If you opt in, 114 govern and you wouldn’t be subject to COAH’s reg.    He feels we may see even stronger regulations on preservation of water in the future.   

Gary Lewis:  equally troubled as it relates to some developments that require sewer extension permits.  If April deadline is not sufficient to fulfill this task, and how many water/sewer permit plans are on hold, noting he feels these projects may not go forward.  It is almost equivalent to a sewer treatment ban.

Russ Lipari:  DCA newsletter reviewed with board members.  Mr. Lipari indicated that this was out on the website relative to COAH, reading several of the questions about ‘taxes’ being raised, explanation of a spending plan, questioning if we shouldn’t be looking at these areas now in view of release of monies from government.  Michael Carroll indicated under this new federal law, there are new monies coming in but giving of these to and is based on town’s foreclosures, etc., doubtful Montville would receive these funds noting that he felt these funds would go to those areas where foreclosures exist.  The article also indicated there was no correlation school child and COAH doesn’t create any more children in the community. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  did we get served on Windsor Drive yet?  He explained we did not receive any notices yet, and it is probably working on service.  Mrs. White indicated not service received at this time. 








Minutes of 9/25/08– Ladis Karkowsky, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale (alt1); Vic Canning (alt2); Marie Kull, Gary Lewis, John Visco, Russ Lipari

Motion made by: Larry Hines

Second: Gary Lewis

Roll call:  unanimous


          Omland Engineering – Trust for: $135, $270, $1,417.50 (Montville

Residency), $135 $101.25, $101.25

Burgis Assoc. – Trust for: $530, $60

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $405

Motion made by: Art Maggio

Second:  Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous



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


          PSPP/FC07-02 – San Dol Korean Presbyterian Church Site plan,         356 Changebridge Road, Block 160, Lot 3        - Notice Acceptable &     carried from 8-13-08 – Eligible: Victor Canning, Larry Hines, Marie        Kull, Art Daughtry, Deb Nielson, Ladis Karkowsky – Notice

Acceptable                                                  ACT BY: 10/24/08


Carried with notice to: October 23, 2008


PMS08-13 Old Bloomfield Ave. Properties (Rosania Design) – Minor Site Plan – 78 Old Bloomfield Avenue – B: 173, L: 8 - Renovation of existing building, signage and tenancy approvals 

·       PMISC08-39 R. Buzzelli Heating and A/C – 870 s.f. office/storage - 6 employees – hours of operation 7am-4pm Mon-Fri

·       PMISC08-38 West Essex Car Care – 3,200 s.f. automotive repairs – 2 employees – hours of operation 7am-7pm Mon-Sat

·       PMISC08-40 Capasso Plumbing & Heating – 1,400 s.f. office/warehouse - 3 employees – hours of operation 8am-5pm Mon-Sat


Carried with notice to: October 23, 2008

          PSPP/FC05-02-08-07 MONTVILLE RESIDENCY – Preliminary &         Final Site plan – Block: 160 Lot: 4 - 17 Hook Mountain Road                                                                                   ACT BY: 11/18/08


Carried with notice to: October 23, 2008

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


Steven Schepis, Esq.

Represented he is the contract purchaser’s attorney for the Pine Brook Motel site and that his client is under contract for All Brite Car Wash, and owns the two buildings next to Suppa, and also entered into agreement with Park Center IV for shared parking and access coming in off of Bloomfield Avenue.

No changes to Suppa site, modification of parking aisles/entrance.  Project involves merging 3 lots and would have access both from Rt. 46 and Bloomfield Avenue.  DOT will allow one way in and one way out access.  This site developed an entrance toward east and exit on west side on Rt. 46, as well as ingress and egress on Bloomfield Avenue.

Mark Walker, PE sworn in

Sworn and credentials accepted

Professionals of the board were sworn.

Displayed on easel was a proposed condition which is a colored rendering of site plan which has been enlarged reflecting surrounding area.  A1 marked in 10-6-08 Colorized site condition

A2 – existing site plan conditions colorized marked in 10-6-08.  Grey area depicted is pavement area.  Mr. Walker reviewed the existing site and existing variances on the overall tract. 

The proposal is to removal all structures and constructs a lifestyle mall and will consist of 57,400 sq. ft, and will have 12,000 sq. ft. of restaurant; 281 spaces on 3, 4, 6; signage will be pylon and two smaller signs on Bloomfield Ave.  As part of development and state regulations, there will be a stormwater management plan and new connection for sewer and water.  An existing sewer and water easement runs thru the middle of this site which will be relocated. 

On Suppa’s site, they will keep the existing building.  There are two different pavement colors shown, explaining same.  Ingress/egress was changed. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  a valet plan exists on Suppa’s site.  They valet park on this property.  When done with this plan, there will be 20 more spaces on Suppa property which will be an enhancement.  They stand alone on this site, and increased parking on their property as part of this development.  There will be a cross easement on this site, and will indicate shared spaces. 

Mr. Omland asked if parking capacity will be discussed at a later date.  Applicant indicated they would.

Access elements of this plan discussed.  Site will have 2 ways in and out on Old Bloomfield.  Rt. 46 will have one in center and another in existing location. 

Vehicle delivery discussed.  Old Bloomfield Avenue is easier to address, as well as garbage pickup in this area also. Applicant will have enclosed dumpsters as well as enclosure of all of the recycling areas.  Have employee parking spaces depicted.  Handicap ramps discussed. 

Pedestrian movement discussed.  There will be 4’ landscape strips in this area with river Rock stone, and anticipate a lot of foot traffic in these island areas.  Stepped the building up and there is a need for a series of steps that take up to the first parking area, and have a small change in elevation up to main area of Suppa site.  He indicated that they connected two sites by traffic movement.  He also added in a sidewalk along Bloomfield Avenue.  

As to water quality, drainage, prepared soils investigation on this site to make sure that the soils were permeable and to make sure water table wasn’t too high.  An infiltration system was designed.  The system is smaller than what is seen in this township due to amount of impervious coverage that already exists on this site.  Have a large disposal bed on the southwestern side of building under the parking lot.  Even though received benefits of impervious coverage, have infiltration chambers from roof areas.  This system manages runoff requirement and infiltration requirements.  With respect to water quality, what is being proposed, is that from the shared parking bay (19 spaces) all the way to the west, all of this area will be collected in storm drains and inlet down to exit on southwesterly corner, and will have a mechanical water treatment device.  This will help meet 80% of suspended solids.  Looking at the grades, located in flood hazard area, which is at 177.5, and the site drains to this area an due to these improvements, there is a stream encroachment permit required.  Confident it will be received.  The flood hazard area was depicted on exhibit displayed (around 5% of tract) and is mostly on car wash property, but does go into lot 4 and 6.  Building elevation is at 181 and flood elevation was 177.5, and building does rise to elevation of 185, there are 3 step elevations. 

This site has a relatively mild slope, and in starting this design, worked on this with architect, reduced this distance of elevation down.  When you view this building, you won’t see the building stepped significantly, but it does create an issue relative to building height. Architect will speak to this height issue.  

Minimum distance is 10’ existing is 0 and proposed 3.7’; to property line is 10’ exist at 0 and propose 2’ on easterly and in agreement with lot 7, no setback to property line; to building, requires 10’ existing is 0, proposing 2’ on easterly side of building in area designated as employee parking; with respect to lot 7, parking minimum distance to building currently is 5.5’ where 10’ required; westerly side of suppa, propose 1.2’ to access aisle; requirement that there be no loading in a front yard.  On Bloomfield Avenue, proposing to do unloading and garbage pickup; requirement of lots 3,4 and 6, have 281 spaces provided with a ratio of 1 for every 204 sq. ft. and this type of use is 1 for 200’, would need 287 parking spaces, and this is 6 more than what is proposed.  281 parking spaces are only those spaces shown on this site, and not the shared parking with adjacent property which is 19 more spaces.  With respect to lot 7, 263 parking spaces required where 104 is required, and 84 currently exist (Suppa’s); building coverage for lifestyle mall is 30% and this is 30.8%; impervious coverage: 84.7’ proposed is 88.8%; impervious coverage for lot 7 is existing at 69.7 and proposed to go to 79.7%.  Signage variances:  38 signs where 19 signs are allowed.  There will be 19 on Rt. 46 and 19 on Bloomfield Avenue. 

The architectural plan on Bloomfield looks like the front of the building and is a theme that was established.  3 freestanding signs where none allowed at entrance of center of site, and at easterly and westerly ingress/egress sites, and details are in plan.  Mounting height exceeds 8’ since they are on high portion of building.  Lettering height exceeds 18”, and there is a variety in the signs vs. one monotone unit to create a definite style to add to architectural character.  Maximum building sign area is 50 sq. ft., some of tenant space will be larger and in name of good architecture, one sign that is 76.5 sq. ft., and testimony deferred to their ar4chitect.  Building height allowed 30’ and will need a variance at 32.9’ based on average grade around building.  Front yard setback on Bloomfield Avenue, and in a way to dress up the building, put up some awnings which will be in setback.  The applicant also seeks a design waiver for the inlands. 

Mr. Burgis:  will applicant give rationale for variances.  Mr. Schepis indicated they will be back.

Gary Lewis:  show one story retail.  Are there plans for mezzanine in these units?  Mr. Schepis:  building is only one story, but there are appurtenances like clock towers, but architect will review these features.  Mr.  Omland indicated that the taller the interior space, the more lightly for better tenants. 

If a tenant chose to put a mezzanine, the applicant would be subject to an amended site plan.  Mr. Omland:  there is a 12,000 sq. ft. restaurant shown, but each tenant will look at each tenant as they come back.  The developer needs to know this.

Proposing 19 tenants, but they may get a larger tenant so it may be fewer tenants.

Mitch Abraham, Esq. represents lot 2 – Mr. Walker will be back for additional testimony confirmed by Mr. Schepis. 

Mr. Montoro – architect – sworn

Credentials given and accepted

Renderings and plan elevations displayed.  This was conceptual elevation to create a streetscape.  Concerns were raised at that time about the Bloomfield Elevation.  This front was used for the entire facility to make to this design is to emulate a lifestyle mall, but an upscale mall that has been successful.  Instead of making one façade, made Bloomfield Avenue nice also.

Initial concept drawing marked in as A3 dated 10-6-08

Photograph of similar facilities marked as A4 – dated 10-6-08

Colored rendering marked in as A5 – Colored rendering Shoppes @ Montville dated 10-6-08

Copies of the colored renderings were distributed to the Planning Board members.  The idea of the Bloomfield Avenue side and the front on Rt. 46 should feel like the same center.  Rendering of A5 and original concept was meant to have the same feel, streetscape, sidewalk, pedestrian creating the same feel for both sides with canopies, lighting, but with a service side, you have to have facilities to keep trash and garbage from going all over the place.  Part of this is to have enclosed decorative dumpster area to have wrought iron gates open for air. 

Actual plans shows 19 stores, but could be less or a few more depending on the tenant mix.  12,000 designated for restaurant space.   Design is to keep transition easier for residents.

Mr. Omland asked:  What differentiates a lifestyle mall vs. a regular strip mall design?  The architectural plans is truly  what will be built, but articulation of rooflines, jutting, etc. are all representative of what will be built  which objective is to dress it up to bring in nationals.  This is the product that will be constructed if approved.  What are the demands of this type of facility vs. the mom/dad type of retail uses?  Ask that the Board hear more about the uniqueness of this property to grant relief.  Mr. Montoro indicated that the retail type of shops really doesn’t need height and/or have alternate materials and/or dumpster bring in designs.  It is intended to make this the type of mall that people will shop at.  If you spend this money on this type of center, and you bring in designs, they don’t care about this and are not presented this proposal explaining the difference in storefront designs.  This is a center that will bring in national retailers in.   Now you have to do something even more special in view of today’s economic times.  You have to stand out with colors, vitality, shapes and shadows and a feel that makes shoppers want to come here and make retailers want to be here. 

Tom Maoli, Applicant – sworn

Represented he is a member of the LLC.  Have been in discussion with Starbucks, had discussions with Morton Steakhouse and also had conversations with a high-end day spa and also talking with Learning Express, a high end toy store. 

Deb Nielson:  is there a maximum on a retail store?  Mr. Maoli:  not proposing a cap today, but are looking for some kind of cap, but may be near 8,000 sq. ft.  If you could have one large box, like Trader Joe’s, should there be a limit so the vision represented could be realized.  Putting in a maximum or minimum, the success will be economic.  Couldn’t do more than 19,000 sq. ft., but wouldn’t go below 10 for total number of tenants thinking 2,500 sq. is a smaller store size.  Also, as to a large anchor, you need more depth, which this site doesn’t have.

Gary Lewis:  asked applicant to explain process with different facades?  What comes first, the tenant and/or façade?  Mr. Montoro explained how it would work, but look would be maintained as to what is presented.  Same thing happened at Tice’s.   This site is smaller than others he worked on.

Russ Lipari:  what is the smallest lease?  Mr. Montoro indicated different styles due to depth, reviewing Tice’s and Rt. 10. 

Mr. Maoli:  as to what comes first, tenant or façade.  Had an overwhelming response to tenants wanting to be in the center and one of the issues is that they don’t want to commit until there is legal rights at this level.   Ladis Karkowsky:  are you going to build this site?  Mr. Maoli indicated that they will begin construction without having all tenants.

Exhibit A6 discussed.  The plans Planning Board 7 – 9/19/08 are contained in architectural plans - Colorized architectural plans.  Mr. Montoro explained about the heights due to roof and requirements to get the look, instead of large parapet, it was meant to maintain exterior elevations.  On bottom,, the green line is the average grade is above floor level and as building starts to clime, it goes above the average mean grade, and when going to the right, it is submerged in the ground.  Red line was roof; yellow line is 32.9 over average grade.  Height of the 32.9 is well above roof, it gets closer until average grade is close to the roof.  Only areas in variance with height are the point of the building on PB8 on Bloomfield Avenue side.  It is only the portico that is in variance since to drop it down any more would not look good.

Mr. Omland:  how many feet are in violation of total length:  600’ with 5’ in height which is in violation of height, except parapets exceed but do not exceed more than 10’ above height requirement of 30’.

Signage discussed.   Materials that will be used will be real brick, stone, some plaster, colored canopies, cast stone, sills, mixture of colors and materials, shades and shapes.  Roof will be slate like look on certain sections. 

Adjacent property owner voiced a concern and Mr. Schepis indicated there is no improvements on this property, and that the site note indicates saw cut at the property line and appears to be some improvement on Azarian Property, but should a waiver be filed, would remove this encroachment but if they don’t and don’t receive appropriate improvement, will saw cut at property line and not proposing improvements on adjacent property line.

Inlet shown on A5 and to affirm, property line will be fenced.  Fence on property line on lot 2 halted from encroachment. 

Carry to November 6th with notice preserved in a Motion made by:  Deb Nielson seconded by Russ Lipari  

Roll call:  unanimous



Meeting adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by:  Russ Lipari

Seconded by: Larry Hines

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

With explanation

With explanation

With explanation

Last Updated ( Friday, 24 October 2008 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack