MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
Minutes of November
No New Business to be
Conducted Past l0: 00PM
- present Mr.
Karkowsky - present
Ms. Kull -
Daughtry - present
- absent Mr. Visco - absent
- absent Mr. Lewis - absent
Mr. Hines -
Canning (alt#2) - present
Speciale (alt#1) - present
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Chairman Karkowsky reminded members whose terms were up this
year to send in their request for reappointment if they are interested to the
Township Clerk. Mrs. White indicated
that she sent these forms out.
Mrs. White also asked if a subcommittee meeting can be set
up to review both the possibility of White
Castle going into the Wendy site, as
well as changes Milan
is anticipating. Mr. Karkowsky and Mr.
Daughtry are available next Wednesday.
Mrs. White will call Mr. Lipari, Ms. Nielson and Mr. Visco to see if she
can firm it up.
Mr. Karkowsky asked the status of the window sign removal
since it doesn’t appear any of the window signage was removed. He also indicated that there was a temporary
sign on Rt. 46 for gym, and that Allenby’s has excessive window coverage signs
for ‘going out of business’. Mr.
Daughtry indicated that the illegal business located in rear of gas station on
Rt. 202 is going full force and hasn’t been removed. Mrs. White will coordinate resolution with
Planning Board Meeting: November
24th @ 7:30PM – Monday night
on Grant Application to Highlands/Resolution requesting extension of
filing Housing Element w/COAH
Mrs. White indicated she forwarded a copy of the letter
requesting the Township to go forward to them, copying the Planning Board
members. Mrs. White indicated she also
forwarded the resolutions done by the Township Attorney since they were
modified from the form they sent the townships to make sure that they will be
acceptable to Highlands. They are scheduled
for adoption by the Township Committee at their next meeting. The grant application also needs this adopted
resolution. As soon as all data is
complete, the grant application for initial assessment asking for $25,000 per
Mr. Burgis will go forward.
Mr. Daughtry asked for confirmation on the opting in to
preservation area since there has been some confusion on this. Mr. Omland indicated a municipality has no
choice but to ‘opt in’ as it relates to the area noted in Highlands
as Preservation. You are mandated under
new regulations to opt in Highlands in these
areas. You have a choice on planning
Mrs. White indicated she has received some concerns about
Kevah Konner and some the lands along Rt. 46 depicted on state plan as sensitive
which is creating problems for redevelopment and/or new development. Mr. Omland indicated that this is the
corridor along the Passaic
River. What this township can do is advocate good
ratables but that emphasis should be given to those property owners to be the
front on this. They should front the
cost and the Township could support it along the way.
Mr. Daughtry voiced concerns about making sure that there is
some action taken on Rt. 46 as it relates to DOT, feeling that perhaps we
should make sure we have some sort of master plan/jug handle. Mr. Omland explained the DOT permit
process. Discussion ensued on whether or
not there was a DOT permit for the pending application at BoA and how should we
express our concerns on making sure the corridor is addressed at some point
during this BoA hearing process.
Mr. Daughtry asked we could
further this from the Township level, noting there were letters sent to DOT in
the past on the Board’s concerns. Mrs.
White indicated she also expressed this to several rezoning applicants and developers
along this corridor. The Planning Board
asked that we send another letter reminding them of the need to address this
corridor, and the township’s request for a sound reasonable development.
Art Daughtry: if you have Lowe’s before Board of
Adjustment, and this application stands on its own with no consideration about
access off of Rt. 46, and this is going on now, how do we get this addressed
and how do we get involved in furthering our goals? Stan Omland:
when they go to DOT, they will be reviewed for access, but yes, this
application will be a stand alone review process. The Township might want to monitor timing of
access participation, and this is when this community would look at it to offer
input. Discussion ensued on how the
Planning Board can interact with a BoA on this issue, and is it possible for a
Planning Board to correspond with another board their concerns on an issue like
the Rt. 46 corridor? Mr. Carroll indicated
he has no objection to the Planning Board indicating their analysis of Rt. 46,
prospects for added improvement, and encourage Board of Adjustment to get
documents on this area to the Planning Board.
Mr. Omland: to limit DOT focus to
one area would not advance this corridor in township, recommending new letters
be forwarded on township’s concerns.
Tentative Budget for Planning Board
Submitted to township administrator and copied to Planning
Board members. No comments or changes
Tentative Planning Board Meeting Date Schedule
Submitted to Board members for comments, and no changes made.
of 10/23/08 – 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
Motion made by: Larry
Seconded by: Art Maggio
Roll call: Unanimous
Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $33.75, $641.24, $675, $810
Engineering – Trust for: $775
Motion made by: Art
Seconded by: Larry Hines
Roll call: Unanimous
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
CARRIED WITH NOTICE TO
PSPP/FC -08-03 – PINEBROOK
INVESTMENT (Shoppes @ Montville) Block:
162, Lot: 3, 4, 6, 7 – Old Bloomfield & Rt. 46 – Notice Acceptable & Eligible
voters from 10-6-08 – Ladis Karkowsky,
Deb Nielson, John
Visco, Gary Lewis,
Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Art Maggio, Art Daughtry,
and Vic Canning ACT BY: 1/9/09
CARRIED WITH NOTICE TO
Motion to carry the applications above noted to the dates as
indicated with notice preserved and time to act extended made by: Art Daughtry
Seconded by: Marie Kull
Roll call: Unanimous
PSPP/FC98-19-07-19 RBR Investments B:
160.02, L: 18 - 321 Changebridge Road
– amended preliminary/final site plan w/parking variance – Notice Acceptable Carried from 9-11-08
Eligibility: Art Maggio, Ladis Karkowsky, Marie
Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Art Daughtry,
Russ Lipari, Larry
Hines, Tony Speciale, Vic
indicated he certified to missed meeting of 9-11-08 and is eligible to vote.
Present: Rosemary Stone-Dougherty, Esq.
Ben Guardiosi, Applicant
Frank Matarazzo, PE
PMISC08-42 For Dancers Only – 321 Changebridge Rd. B: 160.02, L: 18 –
dance school 5300 sq. ft. – hours of
operation 10am-7pm Mon-Sat – 5 employees – signage to be in compliance with
Mr. Karkowsky Concerns on skateboard use.
Parking & traffic expert will testify this evening.
All board professionals and applicant’s professionals were
Since original application, applicant did revise the
prel/final site plan where applicant will remove some of the existing
Mr. Matarazzo reviewed the changes made:
A2 – Colorized
version of site plan changes – Oct. 20, 2008 revision marked
Major change is removal of existing building on right side
of building 7500 sq. ft. In this area are
some new parking spaces, sidewalk and some building entrances and new façade? Reduced proposed parking in front of building
from two rows to one row of parking with parking proposed on ROW side vs.
building side. By doing this, increased
setback to Changebridge Road
to 13.5 where 25 required. Also added a landscape berm and removed existing
sidewalk across front of property and will be located in public ROW. The plans also reflect revised lighting along
to comply with light theme. Applicant also
proposed underground detention for new impervious area in new parking area
which was County request.
Review of Omland’s report discussed. Dumpster location discussed. Would be located in rear of site and complies
with solid waste ordinance. This
requires a separate recycling area.
Applicant indicated he would comply with the approval of
decorative street lights and would provide whatever increase in bond amount is
Landscaping discussed for proposed berm. Suggest that all parking areas not be visible
to adjacent properties and goes hand in hand with hiring a landscape AIP. Applicant will agree to comply with upgrades
and will ask this be a condition of approval and will hire a Landscape AIP.
Art Daughtry: lengthy discussion ensued on what real
parking is needed since 175 spaces are being added, questioning what the real
parking needs for this site are. This subject
deferred to later when traffic testimony will be presented.
Item 7 of Omland report discussed. Applicant indicated that a revised floor plan
is submitted this evening to resolve inconsistencies.
A3 – marked in as
colored floor space/tenants. 11/6/08
Discussion ensued on creating new doors on new
elevations. Revised floor plan in colors
discussed: pink colors are existing
units which will be used for retail uses.
Left front is highlight pink and is 4700 sq. ft. which are two
units. The other pink area would be left
front which is 3800 sq. ft.
Ladis Karkowsky: are parking calculations adjusted to respond
to retail? Applicant indicated parking
calculations provide for retail space.
Item 8 of Omland report discussed. Refer to A2 exhibit.
Sidewalk discussed with parking area within 10’ of
building. Sidewalk is shown to curb side
with landscape area by the building side.
Applicants wants sidewalk along building.
4’ wide strip landscaped area in front of existing sidewalk.
Along the front are 18 parking spaces. Applicant will comply with remaining items of
Omland report except applicant requests concrete vs. paver sidewalks.
Building cover is non conforming – reduced but still exceeds
Impervious – 55% permitted – 71.25% and proposed 71.5% Site plan chart is mislabeled and will be
revised in future to reflect 71.5. The difference
is the elimination of portion of building on right side; removing pavement
along right side and provide a sidewalk around site, and landscape aisles in
this area; moving of both parking spaces closer to building away from
Changebridge road; driveway opening on westerly side and reduced this to 30’
which was 40’ wide; removed existing sidewalk on site and came up to 71.5%; FAR
requires 25% exist at 28.61 FAR reduction due to removal of building; parking
prohibited in front yard near residential district due to parking area in
front; parking within 20’ of street line; parking spaces required 135 existing
and based on zoning chart 260 required, parking stall size 9x18’ where 9x20
required; design waivers – no curbing in western pavement; propose curbing for
new driveway/parking area in front and curbed aisles in westerly front of
building; not proposed curb along new edge of pavement on right side. No curbing exists from front to the back to
facilitate stormwater runoff. There are
a total of 8 variances and/or design waivers.
Found no engineering detriments.
Proposed impervious coverage will be properly graded to facilitate
Elevation of new façade after demolition displayed.
elevation marked as A4 – 11-6-08 as exhibit
Top exhibits show existing front and what will be
northwestern side: same features of
existing building will be brought around.
Elevation shows that the applicant will intend to move the theme around
Art Daughtry: on elevation, will you see cars parked along
Changebridge road. Plan displayed does
not show parking along front which will be closer to Changebridge Road.
On new façade near demolition, grading shows a 50’ setback
and a swale, what from Changebridge road blocks the parking spaces facing Changebridge Road. There is no proposed landscaping. This is a wetlands swale and this was one of
Mr. Omland’s comments to screen these parking and applicant agrees to comply
Once demo is done, does it open the opportunity and put
entrance on northwest corner? If
entrance was here, would have an entire staging to allow drop off of children,
etc. There appears to be an ability to
have an entrance here.
Mr. Omland discussed relocating entrance indicating and come
in on the edge in the corner and what parking spaces you lose to the driveway, can
be relocated. Flooding exists in this
area. This site requires a flood hazard
permit and other DEP permits. Net fill
credits may come from taking down building.
You can physically fill this corner and elevate this to the 174
elevation which might necessitate grading in parking lot. Don’t want to build up site improvement costs
but should look at this. Mr. Speciale
indicated this is the area that floods.
Weighing this against segregated access areas, and what type of pavement
repairs are being done? This would be
done at same elevation in view of flood plain regulations. Some will continue to flood but elevated
areas won’t flood. Under LOI must have
the 50’ riparian buffer?
Mr. Matarazzo discussed issue. Mr. Omland did not expect disturbance of
riparian buffer, but try moving this entrance as far as you can. All the wetland buffers do have some ability
of change. The uses here are no longer
industrial, and large area in back doesn’t have a function, and could be easily
altered to get less pavement, area, closer to code, and possibly get more
Ms. Stone indicated that that wouldn’t work in rear since
applicant would see those types of uses in rear which would be more industrial
Mr. Speciale: what of
residents across street, if less water goes on parking lot, does more water
goes into these lots? Mr. Omland: no, the volume which replaces water will be
used to lift parking lot. In a heavy
flood, the corner of this site is under water.
Mr. Omland: taking a large
watershed and addition of this much will change so significantly, it won’t be
Mr. Omland: requested
applicant to soften the building requested and asked for clarification and plan
revision to address back of building since back entrance may need a bump out
and/or shifting of parking spaces.
Depict rear area to better work.
On paver sidewalk vs. concrete, why?
A paver sidewalk can be done that matches sidewalk theme
along front, but address nominal impervious coverage issue. Existing sidewalk
will be concrete and new sidewalk will be paver.
Will repair where needed and will top entire parking lot per
Mr. Guardiosi. Mr. Omland indicated if
you are topping entire parking lot, and will have to be included in net
fill. Mr. Guardiosi: when you originally torn out, have some
Ms. Kull: isn’t there
a way to do driveway in such a way that it is designed in such a way to direct
vehicles in and out?
Joseph Staiger Company –
Traffic Engineer, Craig Peregoy - credentials given - sworn
Mr. Omland indicated that he needs one complete traffic report in order
to respond to the testimony. Ms.
Stone: It is the applicant’s position
that the Staiger report of October 23rd is their final report. The letter sent was additional information
only and were additional parking counts submitted. The applicant will not update the October 23rd. Testimony will incorporate latest data.
Traffic expert discussed parking circulation, back up
movements and report issued. Entrances
discussed: ESA Hockey would go towards
rear. Discussion ensued. Existing tenant discussed as it relates to
skateboard entrance and use of building.
Parking will be in rear and inner corridor will bring customers
to the front units. Path reviewed on
plan. Applicant proposed that the store
will be in front but tenant and landlord will put door on interior and
customers would come in thru the rear since drop off and pick up would be in
Planning Board members liked idea of new door in rear and corridor
to encourage back entrance. Is this
corridor going to be attractive, well lit, and/or back entrance type of
corridor? Corridor is 6’ wide and applicant
indicated it will be well lit.
Back entrance: is the
parking space blocking door? Applicant
agreed and will address this area and will make sure there are no spaces
blocking entrances. Mr. Omland
asked: Is there enough parking in back now?
There are 5 spaces next to door? Traffic engineer feels there is adequate
Is there adequate lighting and will there be signage in rear
for new tenants. This rear entrance door
will bring in for gym, retail, and skateboard customers. Board felt to encourage patrons to use this entrance,
and it isn’t signed, then there will be a problem. Applicant agreed to install additional
lighting and will make sure it is signed.
Ratio of parking used was 1.27 per and was based on recreational
uses. That is fine for today but what of
tomorrow, were concerns voiced by Mr. Omland.
Feel there is enough parking now, but what of change of tenants.
Want to see more detailed landscaping plan. Discussion ensued on front parking and
creating a common driveway.
Time for completion of construction discussed. Board wants dates certain. Applicant is not prepared to propose improvements
in rear similar to the ones existing for front and for proposed new side
elevation on the east and west side. He
will paint and refresh rear but not add the same architectural features. Mr. Omland indicated the Board will need plans
that reflect enough detail to reflect what is going on. If they are going to mirror the quality and
materials are the same, these comments must be reflected on an official site plan
document and must be contained in file.
Board members discussed the 4’ strip in front of building as
lawn with concerns noted about traffic in front, and perhaps adding some shrubs
and development of some curb cuts/walkways towards doors will ensure this area
isn’t destroyed. Applicant agreed.
Applicant was asked to come back with a cross-section of
landscape berm for height and shielding and the enhanced landscaping plan; Mr.
Omland and Matarazzo will discuss viability of relocating driveway on west
closer to river and how this works and applicant will add a title block and
date to conceptual drawings and will make those changes that Mr. Matarazzo
agreed about, noting correction of parking spaces, impervious coverage
calculations, breaks in landscaped area, areas in parking lots to be repaired
with resurfacing, and consider putting something decorative over rear entrance
New tenant discussed for dance school. This tenant would use rear entrance and
existing parking on side and rear will accommodate this, and will put up a
temporary sign and when building completed will install permanent lettering on
this elevation. Will use temporary sign
in front and will change in future with applied lettering.
Board asked that the applicant to develop timetables and
construction schedule. Board polled and
discussion continued on what conditions should be completed in order to allow
this tenant to move into facility.
Discussion ensued since this is a tenant waiver and when going
forward with a tenant, you are taking a risk.
At the end of day, you can’t legally get rid of tenant, but if you can require
the applicant to increase his originally posted performance guarantee under a
prior approval since the site isn’t completed.
This can be a subject to condition of this waiver
approval: that the estimate be reviewed
to determine new amount and that the bond be increased to deal with those
improvements were they to be installed now.
We can also limit any future tenancy until the site plan issues are
addressed and completed.
Ms. Stone noted the applicant is concerned on DEP approvals
and the time it will take to get these documents in place. Mr. Omland questioned if the applicant
shouldn’t consider a phasing: allowing
one tenant and as part of phase l, require façade improvements, then as part of
phase II, have site improvements completed.
Ms. Stone indicated applicant is requesting preliminary/final approvals. Discussion continued noting that having
phasing with date of completion in place doesn’t appear to be a problem with
the approval process.
Applicant indicated he would agree to demolish and finish
façade by Spring 2009.
Motion made by Art Daughtry
to approve the waiver application For Dancers Only with a requirement for increase
in bonding, that the applicant supply adequate lighting and handicap parking
for the rear of the building to respond to this tenancy needs. Phasing will be responded to as part of the
follow up information required by tenant.
Seconded by: Marie Kull Roll
call: Unanimous Mr.
Carroll was asked to prepare a resolution memorializing this action of
Applicant was asked to have traffic expert available for
carried hearing to November 24th.
If this expert is not required, Mr. Omland will advise in advance after
review of revisions to site plan are completed, including redesign of
Motion made by: Art Daughtry
to carry this application with notice preserved and time to act extended to November
24, 2008, seconded by Larry Hines
Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Art Maggio, Art
Daughtry, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Vice Canning –
Motion made unanimously by Art
Daughtry, seconded by Larry Hines to adjourn.
Linda M. White
Wendy’s changing to White Castle
and seeking a subcommittee meeting.
Confirm Wednesday at 8:30AM from subcommittee members.
Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion made by:
Linda M. White