|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195
Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11,
2008
No New Business to be
Conducted Past l0: 00PM
ROLL
CALL
Mr. Maggio -
present Mr. Karkowsky
- present
Ms. Kull - absent 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
No
discussion
PLANNING
BUSINESS
Amendments re:
Soil Movement/Height/Lot Size/Fill – Update from 10/23/08 hearing –
carried to January 8th, 2008
Secretary
noted carried hearings on tonight’s agenda and the new hearing dates are reflected
within contents of minutes. Motion made
to carry to dates as indicated made by Russ Lipari,
seconded by Tony Speciale, roll
call: Unanimous
WAIVERS
PMISC08-43
Caldwell Toyota – 65 Rt. 46E – B:
184, L: 2 – storage of vehicles (approximately 40) on Hertz Penske site – no
employees on site – not using building – hours of operation M-F 9am-9pm; Sat
9am-8pm – no signage requested
Gary
Lewis: any site improvements
Michael
Coluzzo and Robert Coluzzo – proposed tenants
Testified: all The vehicles will be enclosed with the existing
fencing. No other site improvements proposed.
Mr.
Speciale: Pine Brook Fire does require no
blockage to the fence. Tenant indicated
vehicles will be within back of building with both sides of building open with
key access.
There
will be no carrier deliveries.
Lighting
is not intense and cars wouldn’t be going in at night.
Motion
made to approve waiver subject to use letter, testimony offered and compliance
with all agency findings, no signage approval granted by Russ Lipari
Seconded: Tony Speciale - Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
None
MINUTES
Minutes of 11/24/08 – Ladis Karkowsky,
Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco,
Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Art Maggio, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Victor
Canning,
Motion made to adopt by: Russ Lipari
Seconded: Deb Nielson
Roll
call: unanimous
INVOICES
Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $48, $8
Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $405,
$303.75, $202.50
Michael Carroll, Esq. – Litigation for: $232.50,
$1,026.25, $503.75,
$193.75,$930, O/E for: $67.50; Trust for:
$911.25, $101.25, $101.25, $202.50, $67.50, $33.75, $33.75, $67.50, $67.50,
$405, $33.75, $810, $33.75, $1,822.50, $67.50
Omland Engineering – O/E for: $675, $1,923.75,
$236.25;
Trust for: $842.50, $360, $135, $911.25, $945,
$67.50, $202.50
Burgis Assoc. – Trust for: $540, $240
Motion made to approve by: Russ Lipari
Seconded:Gary Lewis
Roll call:
Unanimous
Note: Mr. Daughtry entered
LOI/DEP
NOTIFICATIONS
None
OLD
BUSINESS
(Note:
Heller Group hearing carried to end of
meeting per applicant’s request)
PSPP/F08-11- LaSala –
2 Jacksonville Road, Block 40, lots 30.03 and 30.04– Development of
office building with apartments above – Notice Acceptable from 11/24/08
ACT BY: 2/21/09
Rescheduled to January 8, 2009 with notice
preserved
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 Maggio Daughtry, Deb
Nielson, Ladis Karkowsky, Gary Lewis - New Notice Acceptable ACT
BY: 1/23/09
Rescheduled
to January 8, 2009 w/notice preserved
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: 1/23/09
Rescheduled
to January 22, 2009 w/notice preserved
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,
Marie Kull,
Tony Speciale
and Vic Canning
ACT BY: 1/9/09
Rescheduled
to January 22, 2009 w/notice preserved
NEW
BUSINESS
PSPP/F00-04-08-15
– Montville Office Plaza
– 330 Changebridge Rd.
– B: 155, L: 30 – Amended
Preliminary & Final Site Plan – Notice Acceptable
ACT
BY: 1/8/09
Linda
White summarized prior approval and amendment requested this evening.
Ron Soussa – Delaware
Hudson –
Applicant
Marc
Brancato, Esq
Board
professionals sworn
Note: Art Maggio entered
The
applicant proposes replacement of 16 parking spaces to the rear of Building B
with a 5,280 sq. ft. playground area.
Building B will be totally occupied by day care center.
Site
is R27D which permits office as a condition use. Thus site is both
residential/commercial. Child care
centers shall be a permitted use in all non-residential sections of township,
thus use acceptable at this site.
The
applicant proposes to include an ‘estate fence’ around child care play
area. The fence is six feet in height
and constructed of black aluminum bars.
A wooden split rail fence with wire mesh fence surrounds the stormwater
detention basin. Also there is a four
foot chain link fence behind Bldg. B which is acceptable and separate children
by age groups.
It
was determined that there are no parking variances due to child care use and
MLUL law on parking spaces for this type of activity.
The
applicant does require another sign variance to allow a sign for a proposed
tenant in Building A. The size of this
size is 3’ x 5’. Mr. Soussa was asked if
he would consider removing the second requested sign for the legislative
offices if that tenant vacates. Mr.
Soussa agreed.
Ms.
Nielson asked for clarification on which entrance would be used to access child
care site since there are several entrances to the building. Mr. Lewis asked what would happen if the children
care center and lease expires to the play area:
will this resort back to the office building. Mr. Soussa indicated would address if change
needed.
Mr.
Lipari: parking of bus is a continued
concern of the board and should be addressed by Ms. Lerner.
Harrier
Lerner, sworn
Reviewed
business operation noting: 30 employees would
work here; hours of operation are 6:30AM to 6PM Monday thru Friday. As to the Mini Bus – not 100% sure she will
have one since it will depend on need, it will be 16 passenger mini bus, and she
will park it where the Township wants it parked.
She
indicated: Entrance is on right side of building,
the eastern side. The doors from
building to playground will only be able to be open by the inside key by
employees only.
The
process explained noting parents do not ‘drop off’. They are required to park, bring in children
and they will have key pads.
Deb Nielson: which entrance is primary entrance for drop
off? Ms. Lerner indicated this would be
the entrance on the east side.
Note: John Visco entered
Ladis
Karkowsky: traffic will come on left
side and go clockwise. Mrs. Lerner
indicated the process is the same for pick up also.
Art Daughtry: dumpster on sketch and playground area
discussed, indicating prior concerns raised about this use acknowledging the
reason the child care use was relocated to the back building vs. front
building. Mr. Soussa indicated this site
plan amendment addresses all of the concerns previously raised by the
subcommittee of the Planning Board. Mr.
Karkowsky asked for confirmation that the playground equipment will be earth
tone colors. Applicant agreed.
Gary
Lewis: How long has applicant operated a
day care facility? Ms. Lerner indicated
there are two day care centers she operates, and she is in this industry for a
very long time. Mr. Lewis asked about
the gate up against the building face, does the state prescribe this noting
concerns in case of an incident. Ms.
Lerner indicated the state requires two exits from playground area. Interior chain link is to separate children
by age groups.
Art
Daughtry: If you have gates into the
travelled way, and requirement is two exits, why not have applicant have
another exit facing the building. If one
is blocked, have another gate for safety reasons. Applicant will need to deal with the two
gates and will comply.
Sworn
Michael
McClellan- civil engineer - stated credentials – credentials accepted.
Testified
on the gates noting there are two – one on northeasterly side and one on northwesterly
side. To clarify playground area, it is
intended to separate the younger toddlers from older ones. Discussion ensued on putting interior gate on
separation.
Modifications
discussed: parking spaces will remain at
119 spaces. If converted to all office,
parking spaces required would be 105 spaces.
Drainage
on site: relocated drainage
structures. No change from his studies
on changes to water flow. There is additional green area which is an
improvement.
Mr.
Omland: on reviewing the plan, there
appears to be an additional variance – an accessory building in back rear of building. Section 16.44.100 Accessory Structures
requires accessory structures to be at least 100’ not 60’ as shown on the plan
amendment, but finds that the area is shielded by wetland compensation areas
The
shed is on grade on top of wall vs. grade since the use is for outdoor
maintenance items and is needed for functional purposes. The form of notice sent out contains the
additional wording should the board wish to take action on this additional
variance. This shed is a better place
due to location of the refuse area and is in the best location for area since
it is well shielded to the northwesterly corner of property and is furthest
from Changebridge Road. If it moved closer to building, the structure
would be closer to Changebridge. Applicant
indicated the prior approval provided for a basement but due to issues, they
did not build basement, this building is built on a slab and thus they need
this accessory building for storage.
Ed
Sniekus, Planner (for Burgis Associates) – surface of rear
If
the shed is being place on a hard surface, then the applicant must reflect
impervious coverage. Playground
equipment must be installed in normal safety issues. Mrs. Lerner indicated that they must follow
state guidelines and some of this surface is rubber and some will be mulch. There is no additional variance required for
coverage.
Deb Nielson: feels that the applicant should know the
board’s policy on signage, that there is a theme that the Planning Board likes
to establish and that the Planning Board sends this type of review to the
Design Review Committee.
Opened
to public….
Hearing
none, closed in a Motion made by: Gary
Lewis, seconded by Russ Lipari
Mr.
Lewis: if applicant can put an
additional gate in chain link fence, it would be an easy solution since it is
totally fireproofed building. The applicant
indicated that there will be a gate in the chain link fence.
Mrs.
White indicated that she wanted the Planning Board to know that the reason ffor
this amended site plan was based on a new tenancy and the concerns of the
municipality as it had to parking, visibility, and performance standards of the
code.
Mr.
Brancato asked that any Motion made take into consideration the additional
variance needed for accessory structure, as well as the second sign
requested.
Motion
made by Russ Lipari to grant amended
site plan approval, variances for accessory structure and second signage,
compliance with all conditions previously imposed on original resolution of
approval, compliance with all agency findings, testimony as offered this
evening, as well as sign review for all proposed signs by the DRC; normal
applicable provisions of site plan approval.
Seconded: Vic Canning
Roll
call: unanimous - Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry,
Tony Speciale, Vic Canning
Mrs.
White indicated that the resolution memorializing this action will not be on
until January 8th, and noted Mr. Soussa intended to go forward with
blacktopping his parking lot as soon as possible. She also noted the subcommittee of the
Planning Board approved the tenancy for office in front at their meeting this
morning.
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 Eligible: Ladis
Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson,
John Visco, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari,
Art Maggio, Art Daughtry, Larry
Hines, Victor Canning. Carried from
11/24/08 (Gary Lewis & Tony Speciale
must certify to missed meeting of 11/24/08) ACT
BY: 12/11/08
Note: Tony Speciale abstained due to being noticed
& Mr. Lewis certified listening to meeting of 11/24/08
Nicholas Racioppi, Esq.
Mr. McMorrow – Bohler Engineering
Mr.
McMorrow described revisions to the plan under review this evening.
A1
– colorized site plan sheet 4 of 6 marked in 11/24/08; colored version of lighting and landscaping plan last revised
12-1-08 currently before the board.
A-2 – concept plan for
proposed driveway marked in 11/24/08
A-3 – colorized site
plan 121/1/08 revision
A4 – sheet B 1 of 1 dated Nov. 25th
2008 – concept plan received December 1st.
This
concept plan reflects hand drawn map and provides more detailed information to
form basis of a cost estimate that was submitted with the application. This driveway requested is one way out to John Henry Drive. The grade as entering is an 8% grade and meet
existing grade at south east corner. Portion
of the driveway in grey would need to be removed and reconstructed to meet
grade change of 3-4 feet. The elevation
of parking lot is 3-4’ higher. There is
a lost of 2 parking spaces as shown on plan.
The Board did suggest that this difference could be put as two parking
spaces to the right side of the building and because of trash in this corner,
propose relocating trash compactor which will create a loss of two parking
spaces all of which is based on Mr. Omland’s concept layout.
With
this plan, he submitted a detailed construction cost estimate and applied unit
prices based on master template, and made no attempt to escalate the costs
using only data. Cost is $32,600; stake
out added another $1,000 bringing that to 33,600 and once you add contingency,
civil design costs, etc., the total amounts to $51,500. It is important to start with hard value that
being $33,600 per Mr. Omland.
Mr.
Racioppi: what size projects do you use
this unit price for? Mr.
McMorrow: this is small site, and
usually these costs are typically larger sites.
Discussion ensued on pricing and estimates noted as noted in Mr. Omland’s
report #1
As
to comment No. 2 in this report, applicant did not add more landscaping near
trash enclosure, but did add more near the signage. Applicant doesn’t object to additional shrubbery
per professional input and would leave this at their discretion.
There
are no construction plans yet for internal layout so whatever construction fans
are per code requirement for this use will be screened and will contain
necessary mitigation for noise/smell.
In
comment No. 5, proposed dry wells were added to rear of the building.
Mr.
Racioppi: with respect to landscaping,
screening around dumpster discussed.
There is mature vegetation near homeowners and applicant offers
additional buffering. With respect to
driveway, is this driveway a major improvement and/or neutral?
Mr.
McMorrow indicated he found this hard to see any safety issues with the
existing driveway.
Art Daughtry discussed location of
the dumpster. Mr. McMorrow indicated
that there are rolling dumpster in the corner of parking lot. Proposal was to put in a fenced enclosure and
added more landscaping on side facing street and he did not make any changes from
prior submission since it was felt adequate.
Art Daughtry noted that the
Planning Board subcommittee spoke with the applicant and his representatives on
the dumpster issue, noting perhaps it could be located behind the
building. Discussion ensued as to
shielding dumpster from Changebridge
Road, the barrier between property line and
dumpster and safety of location, as well as issue of removal by the
hauler. Can the dumpster on the
southwest corner be accommodated? Mr.
McMorrow indicated you want the truck to have the same relative grade relation
as the dumpster. If there are different
gradients, the truck won’t be at the same plane which is a problem.
The
proposed driveway is 20’ wide? Is this
width normal if it is a one way drive? Mr.
McMorrow indicated this width was necessary if a truck leaving site since needs
the width at end of driveway to make sure truck can turn/K-Turn. Mr. Omland:
will this happen on John Henry vs. Changebridge Road. Mr. Omland felt at the top of the driveway,
the width may be excessive. Discussion
ensued on trucking use to this sit as well as the need for K-turn.
Mr.
Omland gave some background of the policy of this board as it relates to change
in tenancy and whether or not there is any change in intensity as it relates to
the use of the site. The Board expressed
an interest in a way to eliminate congestion in existing site, and ways to get
traffic in and out of a parking lot.
Couldn’t this application be modified to provide one way in and one way
out which cleans up circulation and cleans up the site? Can a driveway theme be established to
respond to this? Mr. Omland indicated he
went to a contractor, and using applicant’s engineer material pricing/list, the
price quoted to him was around $30,000 - $32,000. He reminded the applicant that at the last
board meeting, the board wants to know if it is fair and/or excessive but feels
that the cost was offensive since it was a price set by a contractor that
didn’t do this type of work, and didn’t feel that this quote which was
substantially higher was in order.
Mr.
Racioppi: discussions were held with
applicant’s engineer. Applicant went out
and looked at this. If the applicant can
get a fixed price contract on this, they would provide the new driveway but he
doesn’t feel this will occur. This building was built 50 years ago and the
owner wants to upgrade and would provide the new driveway if the owner could accept
a fixed price of $26,000 for site plan improvements. Mr. Omland:
we can’t negotiate this value and he struggled to design a driveway
access noting that there are cost saving that can be accomplished: they can narrow road entrance, eliminate the
two basins they proposed as well as the piping and the trench area which would
save up to $4,000. Discussion ensued on
drainage in rear and mitigation of impact to the adjacent residential
neighborhood.
These
costs for drywell and drainage upgrades can be waived since they weren’t required. Discussion continued on creating an environment
so that the applicant knows that this board is helping the applicant to find a
middle ground, and that this discussion this evening should clear up and
confirm the Planning Board’s concern are clear.
Thought
it was understood that there may be seating in this building for any reason,
this is not depicted in a current application.
Those are some of the flexible C2 items waived based on improvements on
the application.
Site
plan issue discussions continued: If you
move dumpster on northern side, you can get at least one additional space and employees
would park here. Applicant’s desire is
to have a viable plan and is working hard on this to find a solution noted Mr.
Racioppi.
Not
convinced dumpster won’t work on exit driveway, and in interest of making a
better plan, Mr. Omland volunteered he would find a way to make it work.
As
the encroachment of the curb in the ROW, Planning Board indicated that they
would continue to allow and would work with the applicant. It is in non-compliance but overall scheme of
this project would allow additional relief to affect the global changes which
would add to enhance safety and aesthetics in the area.
Mr.
Racioppi indicated applicant is not seeking seating as part of this
application.
Opened
to public
Vince
DeFilippo – 4 Van Riper Ave
– live on first house on far right hand corner of this site. Concerns noted on smells and noise. Advised that ventilation and buffering is
subject to Board of Health and construction under BOCA has requirements that
the tenant would be subject to.
This
street also always has trucks parking there.
He feels that Van Riper and restriction of parking should be
enforced. The Township Committee will
discuss this issue also.
Mr.
DeFilippo voiced concerns on drywells on back of building as well as concerns
to his well.
Mr.
Omland: dry wells improve drainage and
remove impact and will make it a good separation. It is picking up clean water from road and Mr.
Omland sees no problem.
Mr.
DeFilippo indicated he was concerned with outside eating/tables feeling there
would be an abuse as to more outside parking and trash.
Emil
Rodder – 4 John Henry Drive
Mr.
Rodder reviewed the area. John Henry is
narrow. There is a driveway into the
bank opposite this site. On a Saturday
when banking is done, there is busy area at this location. Going thru this area as a resident, people
make K turns using this site 3-4 times a day.
The way the topo is, people would sit 5-6 minutes so they back up and
make a K-turn and comes up property and go off into Luckinbill and then come up
Van Riper. Mr. Rodder objected to this
driveway,. Feels there should be two
entrances/exit on Changebridge Road.
Mr.
Daughtry indicated this is a County
Road and they don’t like a lot of entrances and
exit, and this would be more of a hazard.
Mr. Racioppi indicated he met with County and the County did not want
more entrances on Changebridge
Road, was not interested and would not agree with
more curb cuts.
Mr.
Daughtry and Ms. Nielson will look at both of these streets to review about removing
commercial vehicles in this zone. There
is a sign about parking posted, but there are truckers, etc. that park the
wrong way. There is an enforcement issue
also.
Katherine
Gregory – sworn – credentials given and accepted
Testified
to the two plans on display, and she indicated both plans would need some C
variances depending on which plan and feels that the testimony would be geared
to a C1 and C2 variances. Topo is that
there is a grade differential from John Henry to this property. May have been built like this at that time,
that there are legally existing structures on property, and existing building
and park width exist because property have limitations.
She
reviewed Maximum impervious coverage:
73.3%
existing – propose 70.9 decrease but still in variance
Aisle
width discussed and existing site conditions exist and she testified that this
is a non-conforming condition.
Discussion continued. Mrs. White
voiced concern since testimony crossed back and forth on both plans displayed
and trying to determine which plan is being asked to receive site plan approval
is now confusion and a problem in record taking.
Ms.
Gregory felt that she is entitled to both plans under planning testimony
receiving approval, noting each plan will comply, noting some upgrades such as
removal of existing shed and moving trash dumpster and provide an enclosed
dumpster area will be a benefit to the township and will also reduce overall
impervious by the changes proposed.
Ladis
Karkowsky asked Ms. Gregory if as a planner and hearing this testimony, which
plan better fits. Ms. Gregory felt that
residents will enter the exit drive.
Discussion
ensued on this issue since it was off Changebridge and why would a vehicle take
a side street to enter a site. Ms.
Gregory felt those exiting bank would do that.
Mr.
Omland indicated you can design to accommodate ensuring making sure there is no
access in the exit access.
Mr.
Rodder indicated he didn’t think people heed entrances/exit signage.
Motion
to close to public made by: Art Daughtry; seconded by Russ
Lipari - unanimous
Mr.
Hricko - sworn
Credentials
stated as: Director of Construction – 7
years and 4 years as assistant and 3 as director – manage construction dept.
for Heller group and his responsibilities involve obtaining and overseeing site
construction and bids. For this project,
he went to bid asking three contractors, receiving two written proposals.
Two
proposals identified as Onarati construction dated Dec. 4th
A5 – Onarati
Construction marked in today’s date
A6 – JM Construction
proposal marked in today’s date
Mr.
Omland indicated he felt the Onarati proposal high, basing his opinion on
pricing of asphalt and utility numbers and they are not close to what Mr.
Omland received as quotes. Discussion
ensued on the original estimate as $45,407 with contingency out winding up with
$39,400 based on quantity. Discussion
ensued on costs included that are soft costs.
Mr. Hrick indicated other costs come up that are not expected and he did
not ask for proposals to be inflated.
Russ Lipari: did applicant look
at cost after taking off any improvements Mr. Omland suggested. Mr. Hrick:
No. Mr. Lipari indicated if this
was case, it would be $4,000 less.
Gary
Lewis: if applicant reduces scope of
driveway, will the applicant install the new driveway? Mr. Racioppi indicated that the owner
indicated if there could be changes to amenities which would provide for a
forum to reduce the price, would be amicable, but wanted assurances and
guarantees on a fixed price. Mr.
Lewis: If these revisions are given
this, would applicant agree?
Mr.
Racioppi: No at the number given on existing site explaining they are expending
alot of monies to do this and are putting a lot of monies and vibrancy to this
site. The added cost of this driveway
was high. He has said that if we could
get something close to Omland’s number then applicant would provide this.
Mr.
Omland noted some concerns on what are the real costs, asking what traffic
engineering costs are incurred to build this driveway which is also listed on
proposal as a specific cost. Discussion
ensued between the applicant’s engineer and board’s engineer on soft cost, need
for traffic engineer, noting that the engineer’s plan is built to date
volunteering he would be happy to give quotation for a local contractor to do
this work at $30,500. Mr. Racioppi
indicated if there was a way to do this and control it, either by eliminating
drainage on plan, eliminating drywell which is around $5,000, reduction of the proposed driveway, adding
additional parking and also considering outdoor dining, may be interested. Applicant asked for a short recess. Recess granted in a Motion made by: Gary Lewis Seconded by Art
Daughtry – unanimous
Upon
return to regular session, Mr. Racioppi indicating that the applicant will
agree to go with the plan reflecting new driveway, would eliminate installation
of drywell, would leave curb existing near ROW, would reduce drainage per Mr.
Omland’s suggestion, would agree to put dumpster wherever is most economical,
would provide stacked parking as indicated on side,m and would reduce width of driveway
and other engineering issues thru Mr. McMorrow.
He noted as a result impervious coverage would be increased so
additional variances would be required.
Mr.
Andrew Gering
3 Holbrook Court
As
to seating, he has no floor plan, he would think seating would be a couple
tables or a counter across building with no more than 12 seats. This floor plan and seating is subject to
Uniform Construction Code at Construction Dept. level. The floor plan needs to reflect this, as well
as the additional numbers for ‘variances’ for parking spaces needed in view of
the permission to allow seating.
Applicant will submit.
Opened
to public…
Closed
in a Motion made by: Gary Lewis; seconded Art
Daughtry - unanimous
Art Daughtry : moved that site
plan approval be granted subject to compliance with testimony of record,
variances for existing site, as well as additional parking variance need,
seating allowed for 12 seats only, and during seasonable time, substitution of
inside to outside seating only, variance for impervious coverage, compliance with all agency findings, granting
of waiver from illumination off site due to new light fixture; no other signage
approved other than free standing sign; applicant agreed to develop the site
plan reflecting new driveway, but was granted right to eliminate installation
of drywell, to leave curb existing near ROW, is granted permission to amend the
drainage plan and work with the board’s engineer to further mitigate costs on
this site, and would place dumpster wherever is most economical, also providing
stacked parking as indicated on the side, and would also be permitted to reduce
width of driveway as indicated this evening.
Seconded:
John Visco
Roll
call: Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson,
John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari,
Art Daughtry, Victor Canning - yes
The
resolution won’t be considered until the January 8, 2009 meeting of Planning
Board. The applicant is seeking interior
construction n permits. As in the past,
the Planning Board has written to the Construction Official to indicate they
had no objection to release of a building permit for interior renovations. No objection offered by Planning Board
members.
Note:
Mr. Speciale returned to meeting.
PMSP/F 02-28 – Peter Nagel - Forest
Ridge
–Request for extension of Final Approval
to 12/9/09 – B: 109, L: 30 – Refer to Schepis letter of 11/24/08
Motion
made by: Deb
Nielson, seconded by Art Maggio to grant an extension of time
to this applicant subject to compliance with the requirements requested by the
Township Engineer and Public Works Supervisor.
Roll call: Unanimous
Meeting
adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by: Gary Lewis seconded by Art Daughtry.
Respectfully
submitted,
Linda M. White
|
