Planning Board 10-23-08 minutes Print E-mail

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

 

 

 

Last Updated ( Friday, 07 November 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack