Planning Board Minutes 12-11-08 Print E-mail

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

As of 12/8/08

Absent with explanation

Absent with explanation

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

 

Last Updated ( Thursday, 15 January 2009 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack