MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville
MINUTES OF JANUARY 8,
Mr. Maggio - present Mr.
Karkowsky - present
Mr. Sandham - present Ms.
Nielson - present
Mr. Lipari - present Mr. Lewis - present
Mr. Hines - present Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present
Mr. Visco - present Mr.
Tobias (alt#2) - present
Mr. Canning – present
Stan Omland, PE
Michael Carroll, Esq.
Joe Burgis, Planner
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Appointment of Temporary Chairman - Russ Lipari
Appointment of Chairman – Ladis Karkowsky
Appointment of Vice Chairman – Russ Lipari
Appointment of Secretary – Linda White
Adoption of Rules & Regulations/By-Laws – Adopted
Adoption of Annual Report – tabled
Designation of Meeting Nights @ 7:30PM and Meeting Dates noted below adopted
January 8, 2009 July 9, 2009
April 6, 2009*
May 14, 2009
November 23, 2008*
June 25, 2009
Official Newspapers: The
Daily Record & The Citizen (for publication purposes) adopted
The following 2009 appointments made:
Board Attorney/Execution of Professional Services Agreement
– Michael Carroll,
Board Planner & Execution of Professional Services
Agreement – Joseph Burgis, AICP Board Engineer & Execution of Professional
Services Agreement – Stan Omland, PE
Appointment of Committees/Liaisons by Chairman
a) Board of Adjustment – Larry Hines
b) Board of Health – Lawrence Tobias
c) Environmental Commission – Vic Canning
d) Water & Sewer –Arthur Maggio
e) Historic Preservation Commission – John Visco
f) DRC – Deb Nielson
g) Site Plan/Subdivision Committee – Russ Lipari Chair, Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, & John Visco (alt)
h) Regional Drainage Study Committee – Russ Lipari, Ladis
i) Traffic & Traffic Subcommittee – Russ Lipari
j) Economic Development Committee – Gary Lewis, Tony
k) Open Space Committee – Ladis
Karkowsky, Russ Lipari,
l) Master Plan/COAH 3rd Round – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis & John
m) Cross Acceptance Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ
n) Highlands Legislation
Review Committee – Gary Lewis
o) Appointment to
Fire Department Districts – Russ Lipari for Towaco; Tony Speciale for Pine
Brook, Art Maggio for Montville
Gary Lewis encouraged members to review the Morris County
letter and backup information from DEP dealing with Sewer and Water (WSP)
noting there are clear conflicts between these two agencies worrying about the
affect to our community. His comments
also noted that there is a blurry line as to those municipalities that opt in
and/or opt out as to performance standards.
Stan Omland indicated that the scarce resource order makes all approvals
subject to Highlands because affordable housing is so important and COAH will
use the Highland’s
as a hammer to put affordable housing above all other projects. Every industrial project is barred from
getting a building permit unless there is a 20% set-aside. Many in the business community don’t know of
this. Many clients in industrial area do
not realize that they will be subject to this even with small additions and
Michael Carroll indicated there will be lawsuits explaining
his concerns and the fact that every land owner is now subject in the Highlands to providing affordable housing. He noted there is a waiver process for this
Ladis Karkowsky asked about the 2.5% contribution required
at building permit for commercial/industrial development. Joe Burgis indicated if you have a certified
plan, the township receives funds and must spend in 4 years. If we do not have these features, monies go directly
Stan Omland indicated the theory has been that you will see
more and more power given to the Highlands. Concerns were also noted about the grant
monies noting several months ago we had a presentation from Ms. Swann indicating
we should take advantage of grant monies and we would not be subject to opting
in, but some of the letters from COAH seems to indicate that if you sign on,
you are obligated to COAH. Mixed
messages exist between these two agencies.
No one knows what is going to happen.
COAH and Highlands will make it more
difficulty for businesses to expand.
Assoc. –Trust for: $510, $420, $360, $360, $540, $450, $150, $180, $360,
Engineering – O/E for: $472.50; Trust for: $270, $120, $742.50, $911.25,
$843.75, $101.25, $675, $405, $767.50, $472.50, $472.50,
$67.50, $67.50, $607.50, $843.75
Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $33.75, $33.75, $1,181.25, $573.75, $33.75,
& Denzler – Trust for: $540
Motion made by: Russ Lipari
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
– Approved 12/11/08 meeting - Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky,
Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco,
Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Art Maggio,
Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Victor
Canning. – requested by applicant to reschedule on 1/22/09 agenda
explained the request for rescheduling this indicating the applicant is
concerned about one section of resolution about work review at Omland’s
level. Applicant’s attorney indicated
that the amended plan is almost ready and they want Mr. Omland to review before
resolution was adopted. They asked for a
provision that Mr. Omland would work as a codesigner for a project and Mr.
Carroll indicated he didn’t feel it a problem since request made by
Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis,
Art Maggio, John Visco, Russ Lipari,
Tony Speciale, Vic Canning
Minutes of 11/12/08 – Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, Art Daughtry, John Visco, Russ
Minutes of 12/11/08S – Ladis
Karkowsky, Deb Nielson,
Art Daughtry, John Visco, Russ Lipari
by: Deb Nielson
PSPP/FC98-19-07-19 RBR InvestmentsB: 160.02, L: 18 - 321
Changebridge Road – amended
preliminary/final site plan - Notice
Acceptable carried from 9-11-08 & 11/6/08; 11/24/08 Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky,
Marie Kull, Art Maggio, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Vice
Canning, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Russ
CARRIED WITH NOTICE TO 1/22/09
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, Russ Lipari New Notice
Acceptable & carried from 12/11/08 schedule ACT
Present: David Dixon, Esq.
Following last presentation Mr. Dixon indicated the applicant went thru
extensive revisions based on DRC and board professionals input and as a result
additional changes were made with an additional variance for building
coverage. New notice for building lot
coverage was given.
Ladis Karkowsky requested an update on the status of working together to
develop an emergency access from the church to Montville Residency site in
rear. Mr. Dixon indicated the applicant
has had meetings with representatives of the township and owners of church and
neighboring property. He indicated he
sat down and came up with different access designs. After consulting with congregation, elders of
the church indicated that they did not want to grant access. Ladis Karkowsky asked if the elders realized
the Planning Board desired this for safety of the two sites and their
congregations and possible other residents that may move in the rear? Mr. Dixon indicated the church felt that
encumbering this property in perpetuity would burden this property and reduce
the value. The church doesn’t feel they
should bear the burden of a commercial property. Ladis Karkowsky clarified again that it
wasn’t the adjacent applicant’s request.
It was the Township’s. Mr. Dixon
indicated the applicant is not opposed to giving up property but not without some
Mr. Omland was glad to hear why the congregation was not interested
noting there is another way of installing this easement that wouldn’t impact
the property. Mr. Dixon asked if it
would be possible allowing it as a license vs. permanent easement. Mr. Omland indicated that the location can be
fixed, that the Planning Board doesn’t have to have something in the center and
that it can be relocated to the fringe and wouldn’t impair the property but it
should be a permanent easement in view of concerns on safety.
Jim Cutillo, Architect – previously sworn
Board professionals were sworn.
Architectural plan changes reviewed.
Mr. Cutillo noted the plans reflect:
the building pushed back off the roadway with a larger setback. Lower level floor plan depicted as A2
reviewed. Existing building is closer to
street and new building is set further back and stairwells connect same. The second floor is pushed back even
further. This is a 6,000 sq. ft.
footprint; interior layout is same type of rooms as prior review. Page 3 reviewed as to the architectural
Setback is now at 28’ to stairwell and second floor setback is 50’. DRC request was to eliminate the bulk and
this stepping back was pushed into the hill.
The upper level has ground floor exit to rear parking lot.
Reviewing the elevations indicate that the elements of original building
was used to tie in to existing structure.
Analysis was also taken as to the building height. Briefly described the height of building
noting he’ averaged it and came up with a number less than 30’. Height of building is 30’ and not 36’ as shown
on plans. Plans will be revised.
Exterior stairwell discussed. The
stairwell runs up along side the side of building. The parking lot is about a level up from
lower level of building area, and connected parking lot down to existing
doorways so that people wouldn’t have to walk around building. Applicant created steps and retaining wall to
go along with grade down to doors.
Applicant testified previously to interior improvements and flow of
people to church and after church events.
The Sunday school classes are the same number of rooms and toilets, same
stairwell, but a little different shape than the prior rectangular
footprint. The classes were pushed back
into the site but same size classrooms.
Mr. Driscoll asked about parking. Question deferred to engineer, but the parking
numbers do exceed the parking requirements of the church.
Gary Lewis noted this parcel is more than twice of size required in the
zone and there aren’t any exceptional topo issues that limit use, but between
building area and why you can’t eliminate 1500 sq. ft. of building in an area
this large to eliminate variance requested?
Discussion ensued on parking requirement needs of church noting that
some of the parking aisles are larger than required by code. Mr. Lewis felt the impervious could be
reduced. Mr. Cutillo noted that by
nature of pushing building back it took up a few more square footage, around 100
Gary Lewis asked if it were conceivable that the footprint and parking
can be reduced to eliminate an impervious coverage variance on a lot this
large. Mr. Cutillo: would have to deal with reduction of students
so size of rooms would need to be adjusted.
It is a client decision.
Deb Nielson: proposed classrooms will be for Sunday school
only. Mr. Dixon: Not expanding use and will be for only Sunday
school classes, and the other room will be for weekend events only. Concerns raised on possible of going into day
care business. Mr. Dixon indicated the
church has no intention of proceeding with day care use. Mr. Dixon indicated he
informed client that if this ever used in this manner, church would need to
come back here.
Larry Hines: on Sunday school
classes, there will be no other classes except for on Sunday. Mr. Dixon:
more of the congregation has young children than previously as
congregation grew, thus the request for expansion. There would be no other classes than
Ladis Karkowsky: are there any other activities during the
week that will happen here? Mr.
Dixon: there is a woman’s group from
church and the elders meet during the week, usually at night.
Paul Darmofalski, PE (previously sworn):
the zoning table is incorrect on building height. It is 30’ and this will be amended to reflect
same. To answer Mr. Lewis, he will modify
plan to eliminate impervious by reducing aisle width and reducing size of
basketball court to eliminate request for impervious coverage.
Revisions of November 2008 changed due to DRC’s and this Planning Board’s
input and hearing concerns. Applicant took
these comments and pushed second story of the church to assist in mitigation of
massiveness. Because of changes,
applicant had to modify entry well to building.
There is a 10’ grade from lower of Changebridge to rear (about
16’). Modified grades, drainage
calculations and state regulations for water recharge and water quantity
affected and revised. Applicant is taking
down a structure on the site that was used as a house and sometimes used
slightly as a school. It was noted as
‘demolition proposed’ on site plan. You
are taking a driveway on a busy roadway by eliminating this residential driveway. This is a big improvement in this area. A sidewalk and lighting will be installed at
spacing per Montville’s
along Changebridge Road.
Revisions beyond this have to do with satisfying bulk requirements of
board professionals. Discussed variances
and waivers: 50’ for expansion, with
present building front yard setback at 8’3 and house was at 60’. Because of necessary stairs in front to match
floor plans, have a proposed stairwell 28.6’.
This is an existing church. Requested
variances and waives are reflected on site plan submission sheet. Applicant will eliminate impervious
coverage. Parking is in excess of
regulations. Parking is 1 for every 3
seats. Applicant is required to have 60,
provided 73. As to why the church is
installing extra 13 spaces, Mr. Darmofalski indicated that on holydays and church
events, the church didn’t want to put a stress on the site, and there is no on
site parking and/or neighbor parking and this was focus of need for these extra
spaces. Parking is important to this
site since there is no other way to provide parking.
Mr. Damofalski indicated during the week other than weekend services,
this site is really not used, and is a good use for busy area along this
roadway. Change of slope dictates
location of building. There is a large
differential in grade, and there is retaining walls proposed all of which are
6’ less and if pushing back more, there would be more walls and height
Mr. Dixon: revised plans respond
to Omland’s reports. Mr. Darmofalski: reviewed
Burgis report of 12/8/08 indicating he would provide bollard light detail for
walkway and clarified the building height, noting it is 30’.
As to Omland report of 12/9/08, there are some items with drainage and
will note that there is a waiver on lights required in rear. It was clarified this is a variance. The lighting standards require 15’ poles;
applicant proposes two 20’ poles.
Discussion continued. Mr.
Omland: he noted that the Planning Board
has only approved one relief from this height since this code in affect, but
that this issue may be problematic and that Mr. Darmofalski may be correct as
it being too difficult to reduce pole size while providing proper
lighting. Applicant should submit plan
to reflect 15’ dead and hot spots, but right now applicant should be aware that
all other projects have complied except for about one. There are lights existing on site, but are
less than 20’. The two new lights are
shoebox fixtures. Balance of lighting is
bollards lit and decorative lights along Changebridge Road. Mr. Omland indicated there are a total of
five on site, keeping two and adding 6 more heads plus bollards. Putting two 20’ in middle of parking lot There
are no plans to light basketball court.
Gary Lewis: have no problem a 20’
pole as long as it doesn’t affect surrounding neighbors with
Tony Speciale: the lights in the
rear have a terrain of 15’ higher so from street they would be around 35’. Mr. Darmofalski indicating these lights will
be shielded by building and not visible.
The opening of driveway the throat is at 20’. The two parking spots at this area appear
difficult. They are close to Changebridge Road
and Mr. Speciale noted he has seen cars try to pull in and it is
Mr. Speciale asked how far away from rear of building is paved parking
lot? Mr. Darmofalski indicated around 30’. This is a hill that you have to get down to. Discussion
ensued on fire safety access. Mr.
Speciale noted concerns about fire service to the building with the
distance. Fire access would be on the
lower plateau but there is no fire access.
To get access to the roof of the building, it is 30’ away.
Continued concerns about the two spaces in the throat area noting there
concern with cars backing out on Changebridge
Mr. Omland: parking immediate to
Changebridge road although existing is not ideal. If this was a brand new site plan, would
suggest this is too close, and while they have more than provided, it could be
eliminated in view of numbers. Discussion
ensued with applicant noting that they will eliminate two of the spaces in the
Gary Lewis: it is difficult for
Planning Board to make an engineering recommendation on traffic safety where
there is liability down the road.
Larry Hines: the ones closest to Changebridge Road
will be eliminated and applicant would redesign it to have a proper throat. Mr. Darmofalski indicated these revisions are
subject to County Planning Board.
Deb Nielson asked if the existing interior walls will remain the
same. There is a kitchen area to
Is there soil movement on this site?
Mr. Omland: lower level will
necessitate a soil movement from township committee.
Will there be blasting on site?
Mr. Damofalski: unable to answer
this. Applicant needs to do some geo
technical work but will suggest there is rock especially in rear behind
existing dwelling. Mr. Omland: township has a long standing policy of
blasting, will applicant comply with blasting policies. Applicant agreed.
Mr. Omland: have soil logs been
done as it relates to seasonable high water table to ensure compliant? Mr. Darmofalski: There are no soil logs and this will be done
about 25’ aisle width noting she had no problem with the oversized aisle. She asked when basketball court is going to
be used. Mr. Dixon: only on Saturday/Sunday afternoons since it
is not lit.
Ms. Nielson discussed the emergency roadway placement discussed noting this
board is not mandating costs to a developer; we were concerned with emergency
service. If there is one way in/one way
out at throat everyone is trapped, then this is a concern to the
municipality. She indicated if there is an opportunity for
this board to work with you, they would.
She indicated this easement may also help them when they have those
special events and need parking. The
adjacent site may be able to provide overflow parking on adjacent site.
Mr. Dixon: will not ignore request
of the town and recognize desire of town.
There is always a possibility to accommodate this but at this stage they
are not willing to undertake this. What
stage, asked Ms. Nielson, would they be?
Mr. Dixon indicated the church is concerned about the township’s request
at this time and didn’t want it tied to this approval.
Deb Nielson: township wants to see cooperation of the church
and the township is looking for this spirit of cooperation. Mr. Dixon:
elders will meet with town, homeowner’s association to express concerns
and see if there is a resolution acceptable to congregation.
Ladis Karkowsky: both applications came in at the same time
and this is the time the Planning Board would address this type of
concern. Gary Lewis: any alternate easement after site plan
approvals may amend further site plans.
There is no attempt to force and require this but it is here now and it
is a savings for the future and is of benefit now.
Mr. Tobias: this is a busy
intersection and roadway and perhaps it may be adequate access, but what if there
is an accident on Changebridge Road and a fire, and parishioners have to get
out onto road, wouldn’t you feel more comfortable with an additional alternate fire
truck access to benefit the residents for both this and adjacent site?
Mr. Burgis: front yard variance
indicates that the rationale is a C1 relief which is an extensive existing
condition, unique topo conditions, and he scaled the map from front to behind noting
there is an 8% grade then to rear of 10%.
How do you reconcile statutory requirements supporting relief by Board? Mr. Darmofalski indicated there is existing topo
and physical features of existing church.
To comply with ordinance, the retaining walls in the rear would have to
be at least 10-12’ and some of the recreation and sand area would be lost. The issue isn’t just topo it is the existing
Stan Omland: discussed moving back
noting it would be a difficulty to move it back and be compliant setback
without grading and wall issues, would
be have a great floor ratio as you move higher into the site, and all you add
is several blocks and would mitigate grading issues in rear. Can keep first floor where it is, and may
provide for a better floor plan. Mr.
Damofalski: it is first floor that
requires variance and because of fire codes, it is necessary to keep this and
to keep lines of building with parallel without making building offsets
Mr. Cutillo: the problem with moving
the building back further, from circulation requirement the major block of
building is sanctuary of church and part of the issue is interior
circulation. Can’t have lobby and walk
thru sanctuary and go to new addition.
They are using existing building area to allow access thru without
disturbing church services.
Deb Nielson: should this be approved at some point, make
sure that all construction take places on site, and construction trailers on
site, and township doesn’t want to see construction vehicles on road, and don’t
want to see issues that are problematic.
Any resolution needs to clearly define these aspects of concern during
construction process. Applicant must have phasing and construction schedules
clearly delineated and made clear during a pre-construction meeting on plans.
Testimony summarized: noted that
the site requires front yard setback, impervious coverage eliminated, lighting
variance for two 20’ lights, waiver of landscape aisle; dumpster locations and
shielding discussed. Revisions will be needed and will reappear back at
Planning Board with a lighting plan to reflect, incorporate into plan.
Gary Lewis: Haven’t felt the
applicant has presented enough convincing testimony under the C1 criteria for
the front yard variance setback, although he feels a case may be made for the
Board to consider under the C2 proofs if public safety was to be improved with
the development of an emergency vehicle easement.
Victor Canning: agree with Mr. Lewis;
feel that that allowing this would benefit the community and overall intent of
master plan to benefit the entire community.
Russ Lipari: agree with board members that concern is for
the safety of all the activities, people and concern is for safety and lives
and think this is an important factor.
Opened to public
Motion made by: Gary Lewis
Seconded by: Russ Lipari
Roll call: Unanimous
As to COAH: this type of use
allows for exemptions and Highlands exemption
allows for development of church. Ladis Karkowsky:
Planning Board members would like to see this throat opened larger 24’
is minimum. Provide some templates and
look at this, but 24’ is typical and he would like to review. Mr. Damofalski is that if it is too large,
more problematic. Mr. Speciale noted he
witnessed an accident with a garbage truck in this area.
Application carried to 2/26/09 with notice preserved time to act extended
to 2/26/09. Motion made by: Larry Hines Seconded by: Vic Canning Roll call: Ladis Karkowsky, Victor Canning, Deb Nielson,
John Visco, Art Maggio , Russ Lipari, Jim Sandham, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale,
Larry Tobias, Gary Lewis
PSPP/F08-11-LaSala – 2
Jacksonville Road, Block 40, lots 30.03 and 30.04–
Development of retail building with apartments above – Notice Acceptable from
CARRIED WITH NOTICE TO 1/22/09
adjourned unanimously at 9:14p.m.
Linda M. White