|
MONTVILLE
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:00 PM Start
Minutes of October 23, 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 - present
Mr. Hines -
present Mr.
Canning (alt#2) - present
Mr.
Speciale (alt#1) - present
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF
COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION
None
PLANNING
BUSINESS
Highlands
Presentation – Eileen Swan & TomBorden
Ms. Swan
provided introductions indicating she would start with a presentation reviewing
the NJ state mapping. She reviewed the
history of the Highlands, noting the entire
Highland’s region, is comprised of seven counties
and 88 municipalities. Darker area is
preservation areas with stricter regulations. Other area is planning and is voluntary. In
Montville,
72% of land is in planning area.
Regional
planning discussed. Importance of region
for NJ is water supplies that
Highlands
delivers to 4M in NJ. Statistics
discussed.
Highlands Act
Equity Provisions discussed explaining exemptions and waivers for
redevelopment. There is a dual appraisal
method used by either Green Acres or SADC for preservation working with willing
landowners. Also indicating there is a
TDR Transfer of Development rights, allowing development credits utilize
pre-Highlands Act value (areas where you don’t want to see development happen
and transfer to other areas). This is
notion of growth in
Highlands region. It is up to a township if they want to accept
any development growth. Even if
Highlands sees a TDR, it is up to a township to see if
they want to take on growth provisions.
Executive
Order 114 signed 9/5/08 supported the reauthorization of the Garden State
Preservation Trust to ensure an ample supply of funds for purchasing open
spaces; earmarked 10M as seed money for the Highlands Transfer of Development
Rights Bank; Directed Highlands to work with COAH, DEP and DCA to adjust third
round growth share obligations for towns to conform with Highlands Plan; direct
Highlands and COAH to provide reasonable extensions of deadlines for
conformance to Fair Housing Act and direct DEP to review water quality
management plans and water allocation permits for new developments that drain
water from undeveloped regions in the Highlands Planning Area where water is
deficient. Mrs. Swann explained the permit process and DEP process as it
relates to having to have a water conservation plan approved by council and
fully implemented.
Conformance is
mandatory for preservation area. Township’s
have 15 months to bring your code into conformance. There is no date on planning area unless
looking at COAH issues.
Benefits of
Opting In:
Townships have
a legal shield: a strong presumption of
validity to master plans, land use ordinances and local decisions and will have
direct legal representation where or when needed.
Grants:
Will provide
grants to conform master plan and land use ordinances. Mrs. Swann indicated there is 21Mavailable, and
Highlands get 4.5 each year. There is a fund to work with this, and these
funds will go to those areas to defray the costs that
Highlands
can assist with.
State Plan
Endorsement:
Done thru
Smart Growth and goes thru conformance council, they are automatically consider
to have State Planning endorsement.
COAH:
Requires COAH
to consider Regional Master Plan prior to determination, but recent order
indicates number for conforming towns will be adjusted and extension for filing
granted.
Transfer of
Development Rights:
Have grants
available of $25,000 for a town to conduct a study. If after study, township doesn’t want to do
transfer development rights, townships do not have to return funds.
Also
opportunity exists to apply for up to $15,000 or more if you need it to explore
opting in. The Township needs no
matching funds, and you can use these monies to conduct study, and if you don’t
want to conform, you are not obligated to return monies. This allows you to work and make an informed
decision. 30 towns applied for initial
assessment plans with monies only becoming effective recently.
Open Space
Acquisition funding:
Receive priority
funding under green acres and state farmland preservation, and are a conforming
plan, have an edge
Tax Stabilization
Funding:
Compensate municipal
with funds if adversely affected by conforming with plan.
Review what is
in
Montville in
Highlands:
12,233 acres with 72 percent in planning and 3,400 acres in preservation
Montville can apply for $15,000 grant.
Maps reviewed:
Land Use Capability
Zone map discussed. Green is protection
area. Yellow is existing community and
orange is environmentally constrained zone.
State Planning
area map reviewed. Map is similar and we
are planning area 1 where growth would be anticipated with 4/5th of
area protected.
Water
Resources and Critical Habitat map reviewed. Shows streams and lakes and vernal pools with 300’ buffer
Forest Resource
Map reviewed. Hatching is where forested
areas exist and green is core forest area.
Agricultural
resources map reviewed: This map deals
with soils and farmlands
Conservation
Priority Area: shows where lands should
be preserved.
Steep slopes
and riparian area map reviewed.
Preserved Open
Space and
Agricultural
Lands reviewed.
Ms. Swan asked
that should the town have updates on this map, these updates should be given to
Highlands to capture town accurately. The $15,000 allows updating by professionals
on these maps.
Carbonate
Rock, Well Head Protection Area & Prime Ground Water Recharge maps reviewed.
Purple area on this map is recharge area.
Net water
availability by HUC14 map reviewed
This map
indicates stream flow, data is collected and also worked with USGS and these streams
were considered under worst case conditions. Discussion ensued on not stressing existing streams, and designates
areas as having water or being water deficient.
Highlands
Public Community Water Systems Existing area map discussed. Ms. Swann indicated she looked at what pipes
were in ground. Not all data is shown,
and will accept more info.
Highland
Domestic Sewage Facility map reviewed.
This map
reflects existing facilities.
Transportation
and Transit Conditions map reviewed:
This map
depicts Park and ride sites, private bus routes, etc.
Impervious
Surface and Highland Contaminates Site Inventory map:
This map shows
contaminated sites from DEP. This agency
assisted in doing overlay zone to see where there is cover on ground and helps
to see existing community.
Potential
Areas for voluntary HDC receiving zones Map:
This map
indicates possible TDR opportunities in
Montville. There are grant monies allowed for this and
you can take grant monies to explore this, look at infrastructure, look at
redevelopment. There are impact fees
associated with TDR but you can see opportunities and there must be a process
involved.
Important to
discuss that this process at
Highlands is a
public process, noting the highlands plan was approved at its 84th
meeting.
Highlands
look forward and encourage public comments.
WWW.highlands.state.nj.us site is
good site to review and to offer your comments. This site has an interactive mapping tool to enable users to see how
this works. If you go to this site, you
can go to your township and you type in an address and it shows the region and
put in an address name and/or block and lot, you get certain information, can
see the parcels, and call up areas and can design your own maps, and if you
want to see constraints, etc., all of this is available.
There is also
a measurement tool to measure sites to see what the areas of the sites are. If you another tool on this site, property
tool, you can measure 200’ and can put satellite on this also and you can view
property. Many different layers are
shown on the left side on this screen when you open site. This is critical because it allows you to
share when you are doing consistency review: what are its features and how does it line up. The tool also allows a bird’s eye view of the
site. This is a useful tool and sharing
of information is important. The next phases
are to tie it to the regional master plan so that it shows goals objectives of
plan.
Ms. Swann
discussed the process of working with
Highlands,
affordable housing obligations, and for towns that want to do this; this allows
an extension of time for Housing Element adoption to be delayed to 12/09. If town doesn’t agree to opt in, they are
back working with COAH. If they want to
conform, they will have new numbers from
Highlands. COAH has a meeting on Oct. 29th
and
Highlands has Oct. 30 and they will review
memorandum of understanding, and all towns will get an understanding of all of
the terms and adjusted numbers after these meetings.
Next steps for
Montville:
Townships
received the
Highland’s
CD which is a copy of the regional master plan and contains all technical and
mapping in a PDF form. They are printing
the plan up and want to make sure governor’s review period is over, and hope to
have this in early December. Mrs. Swann
felt we can get the grant if we apply. In
preservation area, we have to conform by 2009. What happens if you get grant? You
do not have to have a new master plan or ordinance and allows more time after
looking at application and deem consistent and to go forward with formal adoption. Notice of intent must be done at a public
noticed meeting, and after that you can get an extension for third round plan
so that it doesn’t have to be done 12/09.
Deb
Nielson
asked about the high voltage lines and does
Highlands
have a method to stop power lines, noting there are 7 miles of power lines and
PSGE wants to replace them? Mr. Borden
indicated they did receive an exemption request on this proposal. He explained: There are exemptions permitted in highlands, but the township should
correspond municipal concerns to these entities and they should have specific documentation
when sent to BPU and
Highlands to analyze.
Highlands has a process which is public comment
prior to action and these documents should be sent.
Highlands is
taking no position at this time. This
waiver was submitted three weeks ago, this line is extensive and will go thru
both areas and both DEP and
Highlands will
review. Generally it is a 6-9
months. Another issue of concern is that
this involves federal jurisdiction so there may be an issue that comes up with
federal pre-exemption, but concerns should be prepared and comments offered
addressing the issues and make sure these concerns are forwarded. Mr. Borden
was asked if any towns been denied in
Highlands
for tower lines? Answering this is all new to
Highland’s. Mr. Borden will supply DEP notice documents to the Township.
Where does
PSGE stand: they are required under
federal laws and examined three different routes, took one with existing ROW
but there are differences of existing vs. proposed and relative to impact and
question is how this will impact your town? These are the things you need to document, per Mr. Borden. .
Question on
mapping from audience
(Note no names
given for public record)
Highland’s mapping and rules were reviewed last
week with Environmental Commission by a similar coalition. The red area that showed on the one map was
Towaco and the aquifer was referenced, which was reflected as an area losing
resource.
Do you see our
water resource of our aquifer at risk at this time? Mr. Borden: analysis is for water availability for watershed. Took all existing demand on water supplies
and examined it under worst conditions to ensure that this water supply would
be protected over time. Deficient times
are a range of deficient.
Orange is a smaller and
redder is larger deficient. Mr. Borden
indicated that you must ensure that these are protected thru water
conservation, recharge, and the planning goal for towns, is to take the next
step which would be to do analysis of water demand and address that protective
measures are put in place.
Deb
Nielson
asked for further clarification asking if this isn’t a model noting we use a hydro
geologist in these areas. The issues per
Mr. Borden are that this is a regional analysis and recognize that there is
more localized information that would provide all information and this should
be submitted to
Highlands. Ms. Nielson noted we are in process of doing
this.
Art
Maggio: if the data doesn’t look right,
does the
Highlands’s double check it, to which
Mr. Borden indicated we should look at things like that but will need more
data.
Mr.
Daughtry: this map is generated on DEP
data? Ms. Swann indicated it went
further. Mr. Daughtry indicated there is
plenty of water in Towaco, and we have firm capacity allocated which is not
just for Towaco, but thru the entire township. With this map, when you show Towaco in an extreme water shortage area,
how does this relate to Passaic Water basin? Mr. Borden: one map does not tell
the story. The overlap map must be
looked at for water/sewage. This one map
doesn’t tell the entire story. Ms.
Swann: this is not a threat, but looking
at future developments it is used to help address mitigation. Mr. Sandham: part of this is
Montville
and outside the region. Does it mean the
whole watershed should be addressed? The
township wants to make sure that our water supply has accurate information than
looking at a map that shows a large amount outside aquifer area. Will we get more segregated info on Towaco aquifer
of itself so we can make more informed decisions?
Mr.
Borden: you may need more detailed
analysis, but these maps are a starting point and grant program will provide
detailed analysis to have it done.
Mrs. Nielson
asked if they were aware that we have a wellhead protection ordinance and
stormwater management in these areas. Ms. Swann indicated there are ordinances they have that are sample and
will look at what some municipalities have.
Grant funds
for NRI are available. Discussion
ensued. The first step in planning will
be an ERI based on info supplied this evening, and
Highland’s will give a template to improve above.
There will be a grant program for creation of
NRI. Dec. 8th 2009 is the deadline,
but notice of intent must be submitted by Feb. 2009 which is non binding in
planning area. These are all Township
Committee functions.
Russ Lipari
asked if they took into consideration the redevelopment area and areas that
were looked at and how does this plan affect us. Mr. Borden: it is not a blighted concept as to towns taking property. Using it as a
Highland’s redevelopment area and plan is
premised upon additional growth being discretionary. If town wishes not to increase development,
this is town’s right.
What about
development already planned, what about opt in and back out concept, do you recommend
that this area shouldn’t be developed de to pressures on water? The preservation areas are already subject to
DEP rules. In Planning Areas, it depends
on whether or not your town wants to conform. In the interim period, you can change checklist to make sure resource
isn’t affected. Time of decision is a MLUL
law. If an application is approved prior
to zoning ordinances being updated,
Highlands operate
under time of decision rule.
Russ Lipari
indicated last meeting we had a presentation from the County noting concerns
about local and proper approaches, and DEP says they have the same approach and
it is our decision to do what is right with planning, yet we hear both of the states
agencies decide are the end result of our community. Is
Highland’s
word going to override DEP or vice versa? Mr. Borden indicated they work closely together, sharing jurisdiction,
DEP will use
Highlands’s technical data.
Art
Daughtry
asked for explanation on transfer of development rights discussed. Rt. 46 is in the planning area, and we are
currently reworking our master plan in this corridor, the 300’ buffer from
bodies of water, the TDR and current map showing areas of potential, how do we
fold this into the study right now?
Mr.
Borden: a receiving area for an area of
town is voluntary. Process is to look at
wastewater, water supply capacity and look at underlying zoning. There is a
grant program right now to assist you in this
The debate
between COAH and
Highlands is on-going, asked
Gary Lewis, and if we accept TDR areas, is this a clear area that there will be
higher COAH if you accept this. Mr.
Borden: If you take additional growth,
you have more growth share requirements. There has to be an analysis.
Planning
Assistance is for both grants, and they are leaving the initial grants for us
tonight.
Deb
Nielson: since we had Highland’s presentation, and
these grants have to be recommended by governing body, can we as a Planning
Board move to ask for the $15,000 grant, and then ask for more monies for this
if the work for assessment is higher? Estimate requested from Mr. Burgis. Ms. Nielson indicated we are particularly interested in detailed water
studies. Ms. Swann indicated these
grants are not available and won’t be formalized till spring of 2009.
Committee
Daughtry discussed the TDR noting this is approximately $25,000 for
preservation vs. planning and looking more towards Rt. 46.
Motion made
by:
Deb Nielson
Seconded by
Art Daughtry
The Planning
Board recommended the Township Committee file for the $15,000 grant and the
$25,000 grant with the understanding that we could apply for more.
Mr. Burgis
indicated he would talk with Stan Omland on engineering analysis with the
understanding that we don’t have to opt in with these grants and also that we
are doing so without any commitment.
Mr. Burgis: one of the benefits is that we don’t have to
meet housing plan and conduct public hearings and this would now allow us to
extend this until Dec. 09 which alters the schedule of the master plan. This enables us to better focus on the land
use plan vs. the housing plan and buys us more time.
Gary Lewis
noted there are so many complex issues in a community like this with water and
preservation and planning, sewer and non sewer service. We need to tell
Highlands’s
folks that $15,000 won’t pass square one.
Ladis Karkowsky noted that
Highlands insinuated this.
Michael
Carroll indicated
Highlands has enough monies
to do grants, and Mr. Carroll will check as to additional monies. Mr. Burgis was asked to come in with a
realistic amount. $15,000 is a default
amount.
Deb
Nielson: we did an estimate some years ago, and asked
Highlands for grant monies then. Mr. Omland indicated he would ask that the
application process for grant be provided to fit grant application since he
doesn’t know that they need to do within the confines of the grant. There is a lot more in scope and not sure of
what is needed.
Mrs. White
indicated all of this information is on the website as well as applications for
grant. Will get figures on Tuesday from
professionals to give to Township Committee so that they can go forward with
grant programs.
Break
Upon return,
regular meeting proceeded…
Amendments
re: Soil Movement/Height/Lot Size/Fill
Draft by Stan
Omland discussed as to concerns of lot grading. He indicated there are provisions in various sections of our code and
soil movement code that could be amended to give the township more teeth to
regulating land disturbances in the future. He did defer to counsel as to enforcing these ordinance changes if made.
We deal often
with subdivisions and grading is required to be five feet away from property
lines so root systems are not cut. The
variety of design standards that would be implemented in spot lot redevelopment
and our soil removal ordinance is antiquated, and should regulate import and
export of soil.
Mr. Omland indicated
he never saw a soil movement ordinance contested noting that if the Board of
jurisdiction approves, you can’t do much except to regulate hours of operation
and doesn’t know if a governing body has authority beyond that. Does feel, though, there are protections that
can be built in. If goal is to protect
knock downs, there are protections that could be in place.
Comments
asked. Mrs. White indicated her concern
would be that this was contained all within jurisdiction of zoning to ensure
that any deviation is not a waiver but is a variance. She also indicated that soil movement would
be better at a board level to deal with soil movement activities vs. township
committee level. These standards could
be written into a land use review process. Discussion ensued with several feeling movement to a board review
process may be better. This discussion
leads to the development review process.
Deb
Nielson: would like to hear from
municipal attorney as to why this wasn’t done this way and why it exists
separately.
Gary
Lewis: in terms of developing lots
similar to one discussing. Like the
retaining walls, and separate retaining walls by 8-10 ft., this actually won’t take
you long to get to this level. Should
there be a cap on the height of this wall if it is behind front wall. Currently have a wall of 6’ but measurement
of height has to be taken into consideration. Visible look as to aesthetic of walls, the set back, the function of how
best to develop terraced walls, and distance walls are separated is the
issue.
Mrs. White
asked for an illustration to demonstrate how this would work on an existing
substandard lot.
Art
Daughtry indicated he wants to make sure that what is in
place is working properly.
Deb Nielson: one size doesn’t fit all, indicating she likes the perimeter safety
regulations and want to see percentage of soil movement tied in to the size of
a lot, and doesn’t want to see residents affected by expansion, especially relative
to minor expansions, pools, etc.
Secretary will
reschedule in December and she and Mr. Omland will discuss this in greater
depth.
.
WAIVERS
PMISC08-41
Olympic Payroll Services – 75 Rt. 46 (
1
Chapin Rd.) – B: 178, L: 2.1 – payroll services
entire building – 15 employees – 8:30am-6pm Mon-Fri – discussion re: signage
required
Approved
subject to compliance with use letter and agency compliance by: Larry Hines Seconded by:
Marie Kull
Roll
call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
None
MINUTES
Minutes of 10/6/08 –
Ladis Karkowsky,
Deb
Nielson, John Visco, Gary
Lewis, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Art Maggio
Subcommittee minutes of 10/6/08 –
Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, Russ Lipari,
Deb Nielson,
Art Daughtry
Minutes
adopted unanimously in a Motion made by: Russ Lipari, seconded by Larry Hines
INVOICES
Burgis Assoc – Trust for: $480, $60,
$150
Omland
Engineering – Trust for: $67.50, $270, $296.25, $1,046.25 (Pisano), $101.25
Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for:
$405, $33.75, $71.25, $67.50, $33.75,
$371.25, $101.25, $101.25, $101.25, $33.75
Anderson & Denzler – Trust
for : $67.50, $510
Motion to adopt made by Russ Lipari, seconded Larry
Hines - Roll call : Unanimous
LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
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
Present: Gary Steele, Esq. & Dave Rosania
Mr. Rosania sworn
in
Board
professionals were sworn
Notice
acceptable.
Mr. Steele
explained the time frames for completion of the project noting the final stucco
finish would be 2012.
Art
Daughtry
indicated at the subcommittee meeting we discussed bonding for those
improvements to ensure that all items are bonded and the work completed noting
some concerns with open Planning Board approvals. Mr. Steele: the fact that the town may impose a requirement of posting a financial guarantee
would restrict his applicant from possibly upgrading this site and may curtail the
work they can do. He felt that the three
year period is more realistic than an 18 month completion date, and is a more realistic
number.
Mr. Rosania
indicated that since two years ago when first going thru this, the economy
changed. The subcommittee mentioned
about a bond, and wanted to give ample amount of time to get it done. Discussion ensued.
Art Daughtry
summarized that putting in real monies vs. performance bond would be more
expensive, and felt that the performance guarantee should be posted. Gary Lewis: what do you to about calling in a
performance bond for construction work on exterior asking if the community intended
to finish the job should it not be done? Discussion ensued.
Mrs. White
asked if we could somehow tie the phasing of the project into tenant moves. Others asked if there was a possibility of changing
construction schedule. What is difference in bonding? $200,000 is the general estimate of the cost
of work that has to be done.
Concerns
voiced as an approval without bonding and the owner flips building, then
what? Mr. Rosania indicated the building
is owner occupied. As owners, it allows
them to keep an eye on the building and that it stays in a good state of
repair. Board members continued to
discuss stressing the need to ensure bonding to make sure the total improvement
is completed.
Art Daughtry
indicated the he works with performance bonding and it not the same as a cash
deposit. Discussion ensued, and it was
decided the applicant post a performance guarantee of $100,000 for total
bonding.
Hours of
operation discussed as not starting before 7:00 AM. There will be no outdoor storage, no outdoor
repairs, compliance with sign theme as approved on plans submitted; no lit
signs on residential side; will need a modified DA for John Street upgrades
shown; and application must install enclosed dumpster behind the new privacy
fence of 6’ shown on plan; site lighting, Site lighting will be 3 gooseneck
lights over each sign, and applicant must comply with ADA compliance; one new
light proposed in parking lot, and any approval is subject to compliance with
all agency reports as well as professional reports. Dumpsters will be landlord owned. Existing
rooftop appliances will not be visible and will be screened as necessary.
Opened to
public
Art
Maggio Webber
John Street
Concerned on
timetable of completion being 2012 especially since he waited 40 years to have
upgrades on this site of
John
Street so asked that this side be done first, to
which Mr. Rosania indicated he would be committed to doing this site
first. Mr. Rosania also indicated that
the
John Street
side will have storage use. Mr. Webber
thought the signs on side of
John
Street are two big (2x5’ sign). Mr. Rosania indicated it will be a panel sign
with applied letters to the sign. Mr.
Rosania indicated the last part of job in 2012 is all stucco, and agreed to
commit to the
John Street
side as first to begin.
Joe Burgis
asked if parking shown on plan is existing. Mr. Rosania: it is an existing
parking. There are no stripes. Total number of signs for building will be
three across main front and two on
John
Street.
Closed to
public unanimously in a Motion made by: Russ
Lipari Seconded by Art Daughtry
Art
Daughtry moved approval subject to
compliance with site plan as submitted, compliance with all testimony offered
this evening, performance guarantee in the amount of $100,000; compliance with
all agency findings, professional reports and agency findings, sign theme as approved, start up hours as approved,
no outside service and/or storage, starting of John Street first with stucco, and completion of project not
to exceed June 2012, limited DA for improvements along John Street as reflected
on plan, and normal applicable conditions of minor site plan approvals. As part of this Motion the Board also
approved the waiver of site plan submitted to allow these tenants to go
forward. These tenancy waivers are all
subject to sign theme established, and compliance with all agency
findings. Board also granted waivers
from compliance with full site plan checklist submission requirements.
Seconded by: Russ
Lipari
Roll call: Ladis Karkowksy, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson,
John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines,
Tony Speciale (alt#1) and Vic Canning (alt#2)
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, Gary
Lewis - Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 11/6/08
Secretary indicated this matter was Rescheduled
to November 6, 2008 agenda with notice
preserved and time to act extended to 11/6/08
Motion made by: Deb Nielson
Seconded by Russ Lipari
Roll call: Unanimous
PSPP/FC05-02-08-07 MONTVILLE RESIDENCY
– Preliminary & Final Site plan – Block: 160
Lot:
4 - 17 Hook Mountain Road carried from 8/14/08 Eligible: Ladis
Karkowsky,
Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, Larry Hines,
Art
Daughtry , Gary Lewis, Victor Canning
Absent: Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, John Visco, Mr.
Speciale
ACT
BY: 11/18/08
Present: Mark Walker, PE
Steven
Schepis, Esq.
Emergency
access discussed. Church will not grant
the easement. Applicants have been
unable to gain their assistance. Applicant did meet with the church previously. Mr. Walker prepared the plan and asked engineer
to consider this but it was conveyed that engineer was advised that they were
not interested in this. Mr. Daughtry
indicated that they need our assistance to do this project.
Emergency plan marked in as exhibit A1
10-23-08. This plan was submitted to the fire
official. Is their approval conditioned
upon inter -connection? Their approval
was based on this plan displayed. The fire department report indicates road
level and is this problem now? This
letter, per Mr. Walker, was written and revised by Mr. Omland’s office. He did make minor modifications. RSIS requirements require a 50’ distance to
ROW where grades can’t exceed 5%. New
road has a 5% entry grade and 11 ½ % grades. This report needs to be updated since it was issued 9/10/08. Follow up report from fire prevention office
is required. Mr. Special will coordinate discussion with Pine Brook the
revisions submitted and the lack of the emergency plan.
Changes on
this plan were the access road coming in, noting RSIS standard compliance, upgraded
stormwater management plans per state, involving basins and subsurface
basins. All of these changes have been
done. Exhibit A1 provides exhibit to San
Dol Church which they did not endorse.
Architect provided
an entry point on back end of building like a breezeway which isn’t picked up
on site plan. Plans have to be modified to meet this. Aside from this minor architectural issue, are
there any other changes? Lighting shown
on site is the standard down lit shoebox fixtures. On
Hook
Mountain Road, there are double fixtures and two
addition fixtures to comply with streetscape. The applicant was not willing to put lights on
Bloomfield Avenue since site is 30’
higher. This area will never be suitable
for pedestrian traffic.
Will plans
reflect additional hydrants? Applicant
will revise plans to reflect all agency requirement needs. Discussion ensued on Water & Sewer report
specially the looping per Denzler report, what of this? Looping is a service connection proposed for
Hook Mountain Road
to this site. Applicant indicated it
will be a service connection only. Mr.
Ryden saw no benefit in moving the line, and took position that there is no
practical position to do so. Applicant
will get amended report from Water & Sewer in this change indicating they don’t
require water line be looped. The
hydrant revisions will be shown on this revision.
Discussed
ensued on the ponding issue? Mr. Walker indicated he did take some shots along
the curb line and shown these along
Hook
Mountain Road curb lines and have some areas
around here that after rain, water will flush thru. This is more a township vs applicant issue
since it isn’t caused by this site.
Two points on
report, comment 6 and comment no. 11, there was a request to propose an
alternate landscaping plan. There are
three retaining walls on access drive. Suggested if this condition exists (rock) applicant will prepare an
alternate plan at that time subject to review approval of the Board
professionals.
Trash
enclosure and signage discussed. Detail
on landscape shows a 5x6’ wooden sign. Montville Residency with address sitting on two posts on a landscape
aisle. Freestanding sign requires a
variance. A pedestrian theme and
connection linkage should be considered as well as a sign theme. Cross walk articulation and makes it a good
themed to encourage and spice up with walkways, etc.
Would like to
see and hear from church and don’t want to substitute and get a revised report
from fire prevention officer and advise the board whether they think it is a
suitable enhancement to safety.
Mr. Speciale
would talk with Fire prevention offices, and if necessary the fire official can
come back, and talk to Bob Schmidt on the fire access for both lanes.
Due to time
constraints, board talked about carrying application on another night. Before next meeting: Ms. Nielson indicated she has a problem with
parking noting parking concerns in other facilities, and an almost 12% slope on a driveway with 28 units
noting concerns with parking for parties and holidays with lots of visitors and
allocation of only two spaces per unit. Mr.
Walker indicated he supplied enough parking, and would look at the idea of mountable
curbs to accommodate additional parking. Discussion ensued.
Tony
Speciale: as to the ponding on road, the
water runs off mountain and jumps the curb, and how much will pour down there
and is there anything being done to correct ponding. Mr. Schepis indicated the water coming off
mountain will be collected into a storm sewer area and will not be drainage and
will be collected and piped.
Art Daughtry
indicated that he understands stormwater management rules requires less off
site drainage than before and wanted assurance that this applicant
complies. The issue of drainage on this site
is a town issue. Mayor should bring this
back to the road dept.
At the next
meeting, applicant asked to also make sure he addresses COAH, soil movement
exporting, blasting, floor plans and shading of building to show, sales model
This
application carried with notice to November 24, 2008 meeting in a Motion made
by: Marie Kull; seconded by: Art Daughtry
Roll call:
Ladis Karkowksy, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio,
Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry , Larry Hines, Tony Speciale (alt#1) and Vic Canning
(alt#2)
Applicant
granted an extension of time to November 25th, 2008.
NEW BUSINESS
None
CONCEPTS
None
Tony Speciale
asked about the soil movement ordinance noting concerns about pool
installations and impact on residents living in community. Mr. Omland agreed we would not want to have
things like this to refer to a board for discussion/review.
Ladis
Karkowsky voiced concerns on the amount of illegal window signs and temporary
signs. When you warn these people, it
becomes a problem. We need to enforce our sign ordinance. Temporary signs are all over. Mrs. White updated George’s VW. Discussion ensued on the gas station on Rt.
202 with landscaper located in rear. Mrs. White will discuss with her assistant and address enforcement
issues.
Motion made to
go into executive session to discuss legal cases made by Art Daughtry, seconded
by Larry Hines Roll call: Unanimous
Upon return,
board moved unanimously to adjourn in a Motion made by: Marie Kull, seconded by Larry Hines.
Respectfully
submitted,
Linda M. White
|
