Planning Board minutes 11-24-08 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Mr. Maggio – present     Mr. Karkowsky - present        

Ms. Kull – present          Mr. Daughtry - present

Ms. Nielson - present     Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari - present        Mr. Lewis - absent

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

                                                Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - absent






Mrs. White 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. 

Ladis 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.

The membership 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.

Mrs. White 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.







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

          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

          Roll  call:  Unanimous

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 Canning

Motion made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded: Art Maggio 

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 property owner.

Roll call:  Unanimous





          Minutes of 11/6/08 – Eligible:  Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Art    Maggio, Art           Daughtry, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Vice Canning

          Motion made by:  John Visco

          Seconded:  Larry Hines

          Roll call:  Unanimous


Omland 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,

Motion made by: Russ Lipari

Seconded:  Marie Kull

Roll call:  Unanimous




OLD BUSINESS                                                   

          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, Applicant and

Board professionals were sworn

Ladis 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 permits. 

Concerns also 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. 

Art Daughtry noted he has a concern since there was parking straight out on entrance way.  Mr. Gaudiosi indicated his tenants are doing this. 

Plans were 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. 

Attorney for applicant noted there are 8 items needing revision:

A platform 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.

Areas of paving needing repair have been reflected on revisions.

Towards rear of building near Dessert factory, there was an improper parking space.  This was eliminated

Applicant did 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.

The cross theme of landscaping berms for vehicles added.

The applicant provided a floor plan for Garden State tenant to determine customer flow. 

The open issue discussed was the applicant being requested to investigate relocation of no-east driveway to see if it could be relocated.

Board Professionals were sworn

Frank Matarazzo – previously sworn

11/18/08 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. 

Concerns 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. 

Ms. 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 this issue. 

Craig Peregoy – traffic engineer – sworn

Colorized version of site plan revisions is noted as A5 dated 11/24/08

A6 is new driveway relocation plan.

Mr. Peregoy indicated if you move closer, you reduce available sight distance and may be creating a potential sight distance problem. 

Applicant’s 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.   

Applicant’s 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 this. 

Russ 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 over with.

11/14/08 floor – 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 ensued.

Applicant will 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 sheet 4. 

Russ Lipari:  site plan shows water and sanitary sewer facilities.  Revisions will be given to the water and sewer department, and all revisions will be shown. 

Request from Health Dept. and will comply with all agency reports.

Time periods and final revisions discussed.  Applocant indicated he would like to finalize and be on agenda for January 8, 2009

Real estate sign posted is correct size per Mrs. White.

Deb 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. 

Art 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.

Opened to public…

Hearing none, closed to public

Art Daughtry

Larry Hines

Motion made to carry to Jan. 8th ,2009 by Art Daughtry  Seconded by:  Larry Hines

Applicant’s 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

Motion made by:  John Visco

Seconded:  Marie Kull

Roll call:  unanimous


          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

Peter King, Esq. from Cabana & King

A1 – Colorized site plan – lighting and landscape plan, added color – marked in as exhibit

Applicant’s engineer discussed proposed site improvements that are minimal, explaining the coloring on exhibit.

Existing 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.

Engineer’s 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. 

Andrew Gering – tenant confirmed his use is for bagel/bakery/deli

Applicant’s 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. 

Discussion of 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. 

The 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 an enhancement.

Mr. King continued:  Exterior is $140,000 with interior being $70,000 so the expense for additional driveway is significant.  Deb 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. 

Mr. 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. 

Russ 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.

Hours of 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.

Opened to public..

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 developed. 

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 addressed.   

As to New lighting proposed, as that the Planning Board makes sure this does not impact adjacent residential neighborhood. 

Deliveries will be limited from 7AM start.

Stan indicates 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.

The proposal provides for an exit only on John Henry Drive and a prohibition of no ‘right turns’

Tenant is responsible for installation of air/noise/discharges and this is a Board of Health requirement. 

Stan 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 ensued.

Applicant will comply with engineer’s report. 

Applicant 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. 

Applicant 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. 

No further public.  Closed to public.

Closed in a Motion made by: Russ Lipari,  seconded Art Daughtry

Mr. 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 reduced.

There is 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.

Catch all 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.

Recess taken….

Mr. 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 costly. 

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 agenda.

PSPP/F08-11- LaSala – 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

          Applicant rescheduled to 12/11/08 w/notice preserved

Motion to adjourn made by:  Art Daughtry, Seconded by Russ Lipari, Roll call:  Unanimously

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White


With explanation

With explanation


Last Updated ( Friday, 12 December 2008 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack