MONTVILLETOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24, 2008
Maggio – present Mr. Karkowsky -
Kull – present Mr. Daughtry -
Nielson - present Mr. Visco - present
Lipari - present Mr. Lewis - absent
Hines – present Mr. Canning (alt#2)
Speciale (alt#1) - absent
indicated she received a letter from the Chamber of
Commerce requesting a meeting with the Planning Board on the
current sign ordinance asking for some concessions for local businesses and
permission to allow more temporary signage.
Karkowsky feels we should enforce our zoning ordinances on signs as we have
since it keeps the community looking good.
Board members continued discussion on this issue noting we should have this
meeting to help explain to the Chamber the Planning Board’s position.
agreed we should continue maintaining control of signage, and that we should
look to a meeting in the beginning of the New Year with the subcommittee of the
Chamber. Discussion continued on the
policy of land use with temporary signs, noting that we are allowing the
various businesses to erect these temporary signs which are in line with what
the Chamber requested us to address.
also indicated she stopped in at the HPRC meeting and asked if possible if we
could meet to discuss common goals in furthering land use processes/review
processes to address inconsistencies and/or outside agencies that may be
outside normal board review processes.
Mrs. White was asked to first discuss the issue with the township
attorney relative to HPRC powers/compliance with a Section 106 Federal Regulation
and after having his guidance, explore this meeting with HPRC.
Ave. Properties (Rosania Design) – Minor Site
Plan – 78 Old Bloomfield Avenue
– B: 173, L: 8 - Renovation of
existing building, signage and tenancy approvals
Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky,
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)
Motion made by: Russ Lipari
Seconded: Larry Hines
PMISC08-42 For Dancers Only – 321
Changebridge Rd. B: 160.02, L: 18 – dance school
5000 sq. ft – Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Art Maggio, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Vice
made by: Larry Hines
Discussion: what is going on with signs in front of the
building asked Mr. Daughtry. Mr.
Karkowsky felt there were issues over the weekend. Mrs. White summarized. Mr. Karkowsky
indicated he has a problem with the tenancy and lack of cooperation with the
Minutes of 11/6/08 – Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky,
Marie Kull, Art Maggio, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale,
Motion made by: John Visco
Seconded: Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
Engineering – Trust for: $67.50, $67.50, $168.75, $33.75,
$382.50, $438.75, $180, $708.75, $810
Burgis Assoc – Trust for: $60, $360,
$245, $360, $1,395.00, $750,
made by: Russ Lipari
Seconded: Marie Kull
PSPP/FC98-19-07-19 RBR Investments B:
160.02, L: 18 - 321 Changebridge
Road – amended preliminary/final site plan - Notice
Acceptable carried from 9-11-08 & 11/6/08 Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Art Maggio, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Vice Canning (Deb
Nielson, John Visco, Russ Lipari must certified
to missed meeting of 11/6/08) ACT BY: 11/24/08
Present: Rosemary Stone-Dougherty,Esq., Ben Gaudiosi,
professionals were sworn
Karkowsky: voiced concerns on signs placed. Mr.
Gaudiosi indicated when he was advised of the need to remove from Township, he did remove it, but did put them
all back up that Saturday AM with about 10-12 small signs. The sign was larger than what the Township
gave a permit for and he did admit he put up all the other signs without
voiced about parking in the entrance way given, noting this is a continual
complaint of the township thus a major reason to find additional parking and
circulation. Mr. Gaudiosi indicated he
wants to get this done properly and get things done so he can cure this issue.
noted he has a concern since there was parking straight out on entrance
way. Mr. Gaudiosi indicated his tenants
are doing this.
brought to the office on time but board professionals have to have them the
same period of time no less than ten days.
This is the board’s policy.
applicant noted there are 8 items needing revision:
with some type of awning added near Garden State Skateboard tenancy, providing
also for better lighting and organization of this area to direct customers to
the proper tenancy in the rear.
paving needing repair have been reflected on revisions.
of building near Dessert factory, there was an improper parking space. This was eliminated
update existing lighting near rear entrance and proposed a lighted awning which
will add to enhance lighting in rear.
In front of
walkway where 18 spaces exist, applicant added breaks in grass for customers to
use this area vs. walking over grassed areas/landscaped areas.
theme of landscaping berms for vehicles added.
provided a floor plan for Garden
State tenant to determine
The open issue
discussed was the applicant being requested to investigate relocation of
no-east driveway to see if it could be relocated.
Professionals were sworn
Matarazzo – previously sworn
revisions discussed. Mr. Matarazzo
indicated that he investigated and discussed relocation of driveway indicating
he couldn’t relocate driveway west since it is susceptible to flooding and
comes up to existing driveway. Topo on
site plan for existing driveway and proposed relocation discussed as it relates
to existing contours and elevations, with Mr. Omland noting if access road was
relocated northerly it may be that you can relocate driveway out of riparian
buffer. Discussion continued on the criteria
to determine if this can be moved reasonably.
voiced as this issue not being addressed and that the applicant should present
his pricing and reasons for why this driveway can’t be relocated. Ms. Stone indicated that the applicant’s
professionals did investigate this, noting processes involved in DEP and costs. Chair indicated that this information was not
given to the Board with the reasons why.
Stone: the issue is that it requires DEP
approval. Mr. Omland: have to go to DEP anyway and to get a general
permit across swale is not a hardship.
It is an added permit and one which is in the process.
Ms. Stone: the other issue is that if the driveway was
relocated down, feels there is a sight distance problem. The traffic expert was going to testify as to
– traffic engineer – sworn
version of site plan revisions is noted as A5 dated 11/24/08
A6 is new
driveway relocation plan.
indicated if you move closer, you reduce available sight distance and may be creating
a potential sight distance problem.
engineer indicated the design speed is
45mph; required site is 500’. Plan is
already deficient at 475’. Moving
further west sight distance would be diminished due to wooded areas. Mr. Omland:
Speed limit is 40mph. Curb goes
to right and shows slight break in alignment which would improvement sight
distance, and as to the woods in area, if it is within the 10’ ROW, it can be cleared
as part of the ROW entitlement and this would create enough site distance.
engineer indicated that he feels some of the problem created on site is that
the customers tend to just pick up and drop off their children vs.
parking. Since it is dark in the rear,
most park in the front and people are not circulating around building. He feels the new plan will respond to
Lipari: is building occupied. Ms. Stone:
no, and wouldn’t want more tenants to occupy recreational uses with this
type of parking method where there is bad traffic situation, and where applicant
is trying demo building to enhance site, to provide additional key parking and
have entrances that would take away from front and try to offer a better
parking flow with better lighting and parking spaces. Applicant and professionals discussed
relocating of driveway. Recess granted
to allow engineer to review driveway.
Ms. Stone: the driveway can be relocated as indicated by
Mr. Omland and Mr. Omland will continue to coordinate this with Mr.
Matarazzo. Mr. Karkowsky indicated this
was the board’s directive at a prior meeting and it could have been done and
– A7 – blown up version of floor plan marked in. Mr. Lipari discussed the walk thru from rear
to front, and if people had ability. Discussion
comply with all comments offered by Mr. Omland.
Items 1-4 have to be addressed.
Floor plans are contained within the architectural plan. Applicant has satisfied condition 6 and will
comply with 7 and 8; 9 is met; landscaping plan was done by engineer, but
landscape AIP has more abilities on this and this will be done.
Item 11 will
be complied with; as well as 12 and 13, 14 and 15, and 16-18 are
acceptable. Driveway revisions and
landscape architect required. Elevations
and/or cross section of landscaping on berm were submitted and are shown on
Lipari: site plan shows water and
sanitary sewer facilities. Revisions
will be given to the water and sewer department, and all revisions will be
Health Dept. and will comply with all agency reports.
and final revisions discussed. Applocant
indicated he would like to finalize and be on agenda for January 8, 2009
sign posted is correct size per Mrs. White.
Nielson: in terms of phasing and construction, there
are certain tenants involved as well as some vacancy. How do we control the development of the site
to ensure that the work is completed, especially since it is unknown as to what
the proposed retail uses may be? Ms.
Stone indicated that the parking is studied on retail and isn’t based on
industrial use. Site plan shows 260
spaces required taking into consideration the retail space. Site plan and parking studies are shown for
three retail spaces.
Daughtry: how do you manage this? Mr. Omland:
the site plan and resolution are only way to ensure reliance with compliance
of approval documents. There must be a strong
paper trail which is relied upon in the future.
Want to see this document as a workable form that satisfies and
addresses board’s concerns. Planning
Board also requested the applicant supply all assigned parking spaces, square
footage of tenants and compliance with testimony as indicated this evening.
closed to public
Motion made to
carry to Jan. 8th ,2009 by Art Daughtry Seconded by:
attorney granted extension of time for board to take action to January 9, 2009.
PSPP/FC05-02-08-07 MONTVILLE RESIDENCY
– Preliminary & Final Site plan
– Block: 160 Lot: 4 - 17 Hook Mountain Road carried
from 8/14/08 & 10/23/08 Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Marie
Kull, Deb Nielson, Larry Hines, Art Daughtry , Gary Lewis, Victor Canning Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, John Visco,
Mr. Speciale must certify to missing meeting of 8/14/08 ACT BY: 11/26/08
Applicant rescheduled to 12/11/08
by: John Visco
Seconded: Marie Kull
PMS08-14 – Heller Group - 1 John Henry Dr. B:
135, L: 5 – Minor Site Plan to allow bagel/bakery use involving
renovation of existing site ACT BY: 11/25/08
Esq. from Cabana & King
A1 – Colorized
site plan – lighting and landscape plan, added color – marked in as exhibit
engineer discussed proposed site improvements that are minimal, explaining the
coloring on exhibit.
lighting will be addressed and proposed lighting on north end and south end of
site present a barely acceptable lighting at the intersection. There is no change to footprint, but there
will be a more attractive look to existing building. Bagel/deli is proposed use.
report can be complied with. The request
for access to John Henry Drive
and applicant’s engineer discussed.
A2 marked as
concept plan sheet 1 of 1.
– tenant confirmed his use is for bagel/bakery/deli
engineer indicated a driveway could be built but because the retaining wall is
about 3’ tall, end up not having a driveway connection between curb and parking
lot and to do so would require reconstructing the entire parking lot. This plan was forwarded to client, and cost
of this improvement was extensive and is reflected on exhibit handed out.
cost for another driveway pursued. The
concept plan was sent but not the cost breakdown. Mr. Omland indicated he feels $63,000 is high
in view of quote of just one item noting that breakdown reflected $1,000 a tree
and would like to know comparable cost of schematic that was discussed back in
October. The shaded area talks to more
work than what was offered during discussions with subcommittee and board
engineer. Mr. King indicated that the
proposal that Stan Omland offered wasn’t fully investigated.
subcommittee discussed the ways circulation could be enhanced, as well as the
shaded area where the drainage basin was.
In their improvement, something has to be done to lift drainage basin up
anyway. Discussion ensued on
circulation. Concerns noted about the
proposed new access being directly opposite bank driveway. Planning Board membership felt it was more of
continued: Exterior is $140,000 with
interior being $70,000 so the expense for additional driveway is
Nielson: there is a
side yard to the north and perhaps you could also benefit by adding stacked
parking. In addition, most deli shops
want seating and right now there is no seating allowed. There is always the desire to have additional
seating. We are trying to make our town
more responsive to making it more of a neighborhood shoppe area. The Board stressed that we can work this
applicant as long as there is enhanced safety on site. That there should be an effort made to
determine what a reasonable figure is and more importantly take into
consideration safety of ingress/egress.
Karkowsky: concerned with at least having
something in design as reasonable to satisfy the Board, and asked applicant to try
and look again at what Mr. Omland recommended.
Lipari: look at what exists. Kay’s had little activity, and that this use
would be successful with an operation here and would generate a lot more
traffic than what existed in past. This
is why the Board is looking for one way in/one way out.
operation testified to as 5AM to 6PM.
Other sites in area have the same problems. Concerns voiced on Quick Chek and back
entrance and circulation.
George Allen 3
John Henry Drive – was around 36 years when this store was constructed. Discussed the entrance on John Henry Drive, noting
it took a lot of meetings with traffic safety officer to address this site. If you get access out of John Henry Drive, it will be a difficult
situation. Landscapers are parking on
either side. If you have entrances on
both, feels would be a problem. When it
first opened up, was busier than last tenant.
Leave entrance open as is, and wouldn’t like to see another entrance
Is there going
to be any refrigeration units on roof of floor?
Mr. Allen advised that the applicant is subject to compliance with screening
and baffling for air conditioning units.
Noise abatement is addressed at Board of Health. Ventilation must be addressed and concerns
also noted about dumping of garbage which is a problem and asked this be
As to New
lighting proposed, as that the Planning Board makes sure this does not impact
adjacent residential neighborhood.
will be limited from 7AM start.
½ of the improvement cost could cut down.
If the cost is ½, is this too much for the applicant, and if this is
possible, the Planning Board would like to see this happen.
provides for an exit only on John
Henry Drive and a prohibition of no ‘right turns’
responsible for installation of air/noise/discharges and this is a Board of
Omland: there is a curb line for this
site on John Henry goes into the municipal ROW by two feet. There was a tolerance on this that the
municipality allowed since it existed.
This does create, though, additional variances if the community
requested removal of the encroachment. Discussion
comply with engineer’s report.
indicated there are two lights on site and these lights are not shielded lights
and are 120’ feet from his home and are of a yellowish glow.
asked the board to consider site without the additional driveway. Applicant is not contemplating this. Mr. Maggio:
the applicant should pursue it, and see if there is anything further
that can be done noting he does not see good efforts being made here by board.
public. Closed to public.
Closed in a
Motion made by: Russ Lipari, seconded Art Daughtry
Omland: suggested variances requested
involves there are existing non-conformity for side yard of 9.3; lot impervious
coverage to 70.9 reduction and if this plan was considered, would be further
encroachment of curb, and this curb removal would result in loss of 5 parking
spaces. Process of removal of ROW
discussed. Applicant’s engineer
indicated he would make the curb similar to John Henry Road curb, and would need
relief for front yard parking setback.
wording is not in place for granting additional variances in applicant’s
notice. The existing non-conformities
are left as is but when there curbing and pavement has to be removed, there is
a greater burden. The Planning Board has
not heard any planning testimony on this project on variances at this time.
Omland: think there should be a
reasonable number and have to look at this with objectively since $1,000 a tree
doesn’t work. Want some backup on
estimates noting it is not township’s intent to make this type of improvement
Mr. King asked
to be carried to next meeting of December 11th , 2008 extending time
for board to take action. Motion made
by: Russ Lipari
Seconded by John
Visco – Roll call unanimously granted to carry to December 11th
– 2 Jacksonville Road,
Block 40, lots 30.03 and 30.04– Development of office building with apartments
above – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 2/21/09
rescheduled to 12/11/08 w/notice preserved
adjourn made by: Art Daughtry, Seconded
by Russ Lipari, Roll call: Unanimously
Linda M. White