Planning Board Minutes 1-22-09 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Mr. Maggio - present                           Mr. Karkowsky - present        

Mr. Sandham - present                      Ms. Nielson - present    

Mr. Lipari - present                              Mr. Lewis - present

Mr. Hines - present                              Mr. Canning - present

Mr. Visco - absent                          Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present

                                                                Mr. Tobias (alt#2) - present

Also present:

Stan Omland, PE

Joseph Burgis, AICP

Michael Carroll, Esq.






No public

Board members:

Russ Lipari asked if Mrs. White could check into the status of the project the Planning Board approved for the warehouse expansion on the site opposite Harrigan’s.  Mrs. White indicated she was aware of the fact that they wanted a meeting with the Board engineer to determine location of streetscape lighting, but she would contact Woodmont Builders to see their building schedule.  Mr. Karkowsky asked if they were still going to install the dock door area.  Mrs. White indicated she would check the status. 

Secretary noted carried hearings to dates as indicated below. 

Motion made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded: Gary Lewis

Roll call:  Unanimous


Soil Movement/Height/Lot Size/Fill – Update from 10/23/08

Hearing – Mrs. White indicated she and Mr. Omland have been discussing this issue, and since it really should be something reviewed informally to allow more discussions on the draft ordinance Mr. Omland prepared, and recommended we refer it to the subcommittee.  Mr. Omland agreed.  This item referred to the subcommittee.

Annual Report – Mrs. White indicated this document is prepared for her department and is not a legal requirement, but is used as an instrument for referencing and forecasting.  Several board members indicated they just received it and would like to review it in greater detail.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated he did have some concerns with the escrow charges that may be charged for a resident on a simple bulk variance, noting when it comes to these type of applications, perhaps something could be done to eliminate excessive costs, and we should look at this issue.  Gary Lewis indicated that he felt it may be a good statistical accounting as it relates to Board activity, noting a quick review found there were numerous side yard variances granted, and questioned whether or not the Board of Adjustment should have referred this to the Planning Board for review while we are doing the revisions to our land use ordinances since this is important to note.

Mr. Burgis indicated that the Board of Adjustment is responsible under the law for this task, but beyond this, since he and Mrs. White are going to go over specific scheduling of the master plan. He noted it will be important to make sure the Zoning Board is involved since it is more the Zoning Board that must rely on a Master Plan document when considering applications even though the statute requires the Planning Board to develop the master plan.  Mr. Karkowsky asked for clarification from Mr. Burgis that a resident is subject to a variance if there is an existing rear yard setback and adding an addition on this is an expansion.  Mr. Burgis indicated it is.  This report is rescheduled to next agenda.

Traffic Visibility on Corner Lots – Mrs. White indicated this ordinance amendment was drafted by engineering to address the issue of zoning enforcement (high weeds, tree and/or bush obtrusion in Sight Distance Triangle) and would help guide residents as to the area that must be kept less than 30”.  Mr. Omland reviewed and found acceptable.  Motion made by:  Russ Lipari, Seconded by: Art Maggio to forward this ordinance to Township Committee recommending it is adopted.  Roll call:  Unanimous

Draft Ordinance on:  Wood Burning Furnaces – Mrs. White summarized issues facing the community relative to installation of outside wood burning furnaces that are contained within a shed on the property.  An ordinance that had originally been sent to the Planning Board to review was discussed as it related to the current complaint received, and it appears even this proposal would not address the smoke from the chimney in such a way that a municipality could enforce.  She indicated this unit is located in rear yard of a large lot and is connected to the main house with plumbing/electric permits filed. 

After reviewing the matter, she discussed this with the Township Attorney and as zoning officer felt that if another permit was filed for this type of accessory structure, she would deny since she felt it wasn’t a ‘normal’ accessory use that is commonly associated with single family homes.  The Township Attorney was comfortable if necessary in defending this decision.  Mr. Tobias indicated as the liaison to Board of Health, that this type of burning in large quantities on large tracts of areas may be something that would be problem since smoke sits. 

Mr. Burgis was asked to review this situation and advise accordingly.


PMISC09-01 Digital Multi-Media Services – 20 Chapin Rd. Unit   1010 – B: 183, L: 7.2 – office (4,164 s.f.)/warehouse (1,336 s.f.) for digital signage hardware, software and services – 9 employees – hours of operation 8am-6pm Mon-Sat – one delivery per day (UPS or tractor trailer) – no outdoor storage - signage to be in compliance with approved theme (First Industrial)

Approved subject to compliance with use letter, compliance with all agency findings and sign theme made by:  Gary Lewis   Seconded by:  Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous


PSPP /F00-04-08-15 – Montville Office Plaza – 330 Changebridge Rd.

B: 155, L: 30 – Amended Preliminary & Final Site Plan – approved 11/12/08 - Eligible: Mr. Karkowsky, Ms. Nielson, Mr. Visco, Mr. Maggio, Mr. Lipari, Mr. Maggio, Mr. Hines, Mr. Canning & Mr. Speciale

Motion made by:  Deb Nielson

Seconded by: Larry Hines

Roll call: unanimous




Minutes of 1/8/09 – Eligible:  Mr. Karkowsky, Mr. Canning, Ms. Nielson, Mr. Visco, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Maggio, Mr. Lipari, Mr. Sandham, Mr. Hines, Mr. Speciale & Mr. Tobias.

Subcommittee minutes of 1/8/09 – Eligible:  Mr. Karkowsky, Mr. Lipari, Ms. Nielson, Mr. Visco

Motion made by: Russ Lipari  

Seconded by: Larry Hines

Roll call: unanimous


Omland Engineering – Trust for: $1,303.75 (RBR); $135

Burgis Assoc. – Trust for: $150, $360, $480

Motion made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded by: Tony Speciale

Roll call: unanimous




PSPP/FC98-19-07-19 RBR Investments B: 160.02, L: 18 - 321 Changebridge Road – amended preliminary/final site plan - Notice Acceptable carried from 9-11-08 & 11/6/08; 11/24/08 & rescheduled from 1/8/09 agenda  Eligible: Mr. Karkowsky, Mr. Maggio, Mr. Hines, Mr. Speciale, Mr. Canning, Ms. Nielson, Mr. Visco, Mr. Lipari                                                    ACT BY: 1/23/09

Ladis Karkowsky noted his concerns on what he observed on the site since last meeting noting there was excessive parking in the driveway area three deep and three across, feeling this is a dangerous condition.

Rosemary Dougherty, Esq.

Reviewed the past issues and request of the Planning Board indicating that the applicant addressed these issues with his latest revision noting:  updated landscaping plan which was reviewed and found acceptable by board professionals; relocation of driveway entrance which was reviewed and approved by professionals; architectural renderings, under Exhibit 8 previously entered responded to this request, and this evening applicant submitted exhibit A10 which will show elevation after removal of portion of building, with new façade which will include one more interior door. 

(Note:  Board professionals sworn)

Applicant also submitted a floor plan identifying each of tenants, door locations and interior location of Garden State Roller Blade.  She indicated discussions held with Mr. Omland’s on his comment to have the driveways striped for allocation for simplicity on one easy sheet for future tenancy applications and agreed this could be submitted as a condition of approval. 

Ms. Dougherty further indicated that this revision also incorporates all of Mr. Omland current report, as well as his comments from his November 8th report.  The applicant will comply with submission, as indicated, as to supplying a separate plan sheet with floor plans, parking lot and an allocation rather than a dedication of parking spaces.  It was the applicant understands that the architectural rendering submitted as part of this application is adequate vs. architectural plans.  Mr. Omland indicated it is normal to get architectural plan in order to view construction materials, but because this is an expansion, and their submission includes a rendering of how the other elevations will look, he believes this adequate and that it follows the existing building theme.  As long as applicant affirms materials and quality of new façade will match or equal to existing areas, he has no objection to document as submitted. Applicant concurred.

Russ Lipari:  in review of parking layout, is the parking shown on landscape plan representative of what the parking will be.  The site plan and landscaping plans reflect the same landscaping details, with the site plan governing control.  Mr. Lipari felt if the landscape is shown in the area where there is excessive parking, the issue with parking problems should be eliminated.  Applicant confirmed.

Applicant agreed to comply with all conditions indicated in the Omland report. 

As to Burgis Associate report of Jan. 16th, applicant agrees to comply with items 1, 2, and 3 as to landscaping revisions.  Mr. Burgis indicated he is satisfied with revisions.

Opened and closed to the public – no comments

Gary Lewis asked about the two way driveways and shrubbery shown on plan, there is 4’ high plantings in front inlands, is this is a potential sight triangle issue?  Discussion ensued.  It was suggested perhaps another type of landscaping species should be supplied.  Mr. Omland suggested that as a condition of approval, this approval condition stipulate that final placement of landscaping with inspection authority be given to the township engineer.  Applicant should address this, and modify this prior to installation of any plantings.

Motion made by Russ Lipari to approve subject to compliance with all agency reports and professional reports rendered, testimony of record, revisions to address all testimony offered,  compliance with additional document reflecting a single consolidated plan showing all floor area/tenants/parking for use in future waiver filings, normal applicable provisions of site plan approval, DA, waiver of architectural plan, compliance with professional reports submitted, Morris County Planning Board, Soil Conservation, DEP, no constructions trailers provided for requested as part of this site, submission of an updated fire report to address revisions as approved this evening.  Granting of all variances noted in Burgis Associate report of January 16th, and Mr. Burgis report, and that there is a single consolidated plan that is incorporated into this resolution.

Deb Nielson seconded

Under discussion…

Ms. Nielson asked about the time table and construction trailers and want assurances this is in record.  Mrs. Dougherty indicated that the applicant within 12 months would proceed with demo and construction would start within 3 months thereafter.  Discussion ensued.  It was decided that nine months were more in line with what we would like to see in having this site addressed, and if there is a problem at that time, report back to the Planning Board on status. 

There are no constructions trailers provided for or requested as part of this site.  This application would also be subject to compliance with fire code ordinances and although a report is in file, an additional report is needed.

Mr. Lipari asked that the applicant fix the ‘no parking’ signs on the site to something more appealing.   

Mr. Carroll asked for clarification on exhibits entered:

A8 – marked in - building floor plan identify unit numbers by current existing and current uses and interior design submitted by letter to the Board

A9 and A10 are building elevations, one proposed one existing.

1/16/08 Burgis report indicates variances are:  Parking in front yard and number of parking spaces and parking within 13.5 ft of street line where 20’ minimum, Sizes of the parking stalls.

Roll call:  Unanimous

 PSPP/FC -08-03 – PINEBROOK INVESTMENT (Shoppes @ Montville) B: 162, L: 3, 4, 6, 7 – Old Bloomfield & Rt. 46 –Notice Acceptable & Eligible voters from 10-6-08 – Mr. Karkowsky, Ms. Nielson, Mr. Visco, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lipari, Mr. Hines, Mr. Maggio, Mr. Speciale and Mr. Canning                                                          ACT BY:  1/22/09

                        Rescheduled with notice preserved to 3/12/09 Agenda

                        Requested by Applicant

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: Mr. Karkowsky,     Ms. Nielson, Mr. Hines, Mr.  Lewis, Mr. Canning, Mr. Maggio, Mr. Lipari, Mr. Visco, Mr. Speciale                                                 ACT BY: 1/22/09

                        Rescheduled w/notice carried to 2/26/09 agenda

                        Requested by Applicant


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 11/24/08 agenda – rescheduled from 1/8/09  ACT BY:  2/21/09

Present:  Randall Chiocca, Esq.

Applicant reviewed the submission of materials and architectural plans submitted:  Preliminary and Final Site Plans, prepared by CMX of Parsippany, New Jersey consisting of fourteen (14) sheets dated August 8, 2008, revised through October 31, 2008; Stormwater Management Systems Report, as prepared by CMX of Parsippany, New Jersey dated August 8, 2008, revised through October 31, 2008; Operation and Maintenance Manual, as prepared by CMX of Parsippany, New Jersey dated August 8, 2008, revised through October 31, 2008 and Architectural Elevations and Floor plans prepared by Byrne Design Associates, of Randolph, New Jersey-, consisting of four (4) sheets, dated July 7, 2008, revised through September 22, 2008.

Mr. Chiocca reviewed prior history of the site noting the prior application for subdivision (PMN/P/F 00-21) was approved 2001, the ultimate use of lot 30.03 was not known at the time of the initial development application.  This remainder parcel was the subject of much discussion, requesting any future use be complimentary to the day care facility previously approved.  The Board included provisions in their grant of approval on the 2001 approval to ensure the two properties could be developed in a complimentary manner.  Foremost among those conditions were the construction of ten (10) reserved parking spaces along the frontage of lot 30.04 (Goddard School) and associated landscape screening along with the provision that the future development of lot 30.03 not be dissimilar to the day care use.  This site is located on corner of Main Street and Jacksonville.  Mr. Chiocca indicated once the Towaco ordinances were adopted, the applicant proceeded immediately with development of this site to respect this ordinance and adjacent site which as indicated provided controls for parking and cross easements.  Applicant seeks preliminary/final site plan with variances for impervious coverage, and waiver of a connection between parking on lot 30.03 and additional parking on 30.04 and shared parking concept. 

William Byrne Architect – sworn

Credentials given and accepted. 

Mr. Byrne indicated he designed this site in accordance with the Towaco design center:  retail spaces on bottom with broken up design standards to allow these units to be marketed easily by owner.  The upper level consists of 6 apartments accessible by stairwell as well as backstairs entrance from street side.  Apartments consist of is 4 two bedroom units and 2 one bedroom units.

Exterior façade reviewed

Front façade marked as A1 Main Road

Second façade is from the corner of Jacksonville Road rear elevation marked A2

East side of elevation is the side facing Jacksonville and rear marked A3

Gary Lewis noted that in conjunction with his position in Summit he has reviewed building plans from this company.  He finds no conflict as did Mr. Carroll.

A1 exhibit reviewed – Main Street opposite railroad tract. 

Building façade and elevations reviewed as to details; no roof structure units will be visible.  Railroad tracts may be higher, but more so on the west, but at this location Mr. Byrnes indicated that from his visiting site,  the tracts are equal to first floor of building and feels there is no way any visibility beyond rendering would be seen. 

Rear elevation reviewed.  Mr. Tobias asked if a fake peak were put in this area, would the issues of possible view of rooftop appliances be solved.  Mr.  Byrne indicated he can design a similar placement and feels he can accomplish this since pitched roof allows for more ability to screen on this site.

Mr. Tobias asked if there are areas for UPS deliveries.  This issue will be addressed.

Final revision is 9/9/08 to architectural – sheet #2 reviewed which plan has the elevations with dimensions and more details than the renderings on the plans.  The details are detailed more in text and outlined on sheet no. 1.  The height of the proposed structure to the eve is 25’ in conformance with ordinance.  There are 5’ extensions for parapets and ornamental and this complies with Towaco ordinance. 

Sheet no. 3 depicts rear elevation and right elevation treatment described in renderings but more details as to various architectural treatments.

Interior apartment elevations reviewed.  

Roof plan on sheet 6 reviewed. 

Applicant agreed to comply with the Healthy department review report relative to item 5, radon construction.  Mr. Byrne indicated this will not be a problem since there will be no problem since this is on a concrete slab and will utilize constructions techniques to ensure compliance, explaining same.

The DRC report of 12/18/08 reviewed.  Applicant indicated he will comply and will make sure the applicant obtains information on residential street address details early on in process.

Applicant agreed to comply with all agency findings as well as fire prevention bureau’s needs.

Gary Lewis:  voiced concerns this project located in one of the community’s critical sensitive area and one of the rationales given is to encourage sustainable construction.  To put plant beds in are nice, but what should be told is what efforts have been considered or will be considered towards this goal, whether it be more efficient mechanical equipment and/or irrigation measures, these issues should be considered.  We need to make sure there are no impacts to mitigate these issues. 

Mr. Chiocca indicated the site engineer could testify to this as to recharge waters.  On buildings themselves, Mr. Byrnes indicated he hasn’t gotten into energy efficiency yet but will use more environmentally friendly techniques on green designs. These materials used will promote that and it is something they will continue to use this. 

Gary Lewis:  what kind of water measures are used in apartments in defense of application.  Although a good design, these issues are things we need testimony on.

Mr. Tobias:  perhaps consider a cistern type of system.

Mr. Hines:  is all mechanical going to be on roof.  Applicant indicated there will be none on ground and site has natural gas which will be used.

Joe Burgis:  design standards have some inconsistency in design, why are there two different types of architecture added in.  Mr. Byrnes indicated he didn’t want to make it look as if it were one building, and wanted to create a building that has some variety in it.  Mr. Burgis indicated the applicant has addressed a lot of his issues from prior reports.

Mr. Karkowsky asked how the applicant was going to address the county roadway improvement, including the sketch Mr. Omland provided as to concerns with roadway improvements in this area.

Adam Remick, PE – sworn

Summarized the meeting held with the County noting that the County wasn’t interested in taking this property for roadway improvements, noting he also received a sketch from Mr. Omland’s office as to a less intense improvement to this intersection, and saw a smaller radius imposed which came into the front yard area, and that this could be pursued thru an easement vs. a taking.  When reviewing this, he took no issues to it.  There are no structures in this area and seems like a good compromise but the question arose as to sight distance.  Mr. Remick indicated this has not been investigated.  There are a lot of possibilities of future actions that may result from increased traffic and/or an accident, noted Mr. Omland.  Mr. Chiocca indicated the applicant would give granting of easement for these improvements.

Deb Nielson asked if anyone present at County for representative.  Mr. Remick indicated Mr. Barile was invited but felt that the applicant could proceed on this to the county and then discuss their findings with him.    

It was County’s contention that they wouldn’t proceed with the taking of the lands previously indicated.  Mr. Remick indicated that they were not going to pursue it, they saw a lack of a safety need, that this roadway improvement originally designed years previously was not a high priority on their list, was a dormant problem and idea deciding the County wasn’t going to move forward.

Ms. Nielson indicated that unless there are traffic studies that reflected increased or decreased traffic different than what was used to establish this need in 2004 when County first proposed roadway improvement, she can only presume it would only increase.  It was voiced that perhaps this should be discussed again with County, noting there are other on going projects and if there is a cost sharing project, perhaps the Township could work with this.  This was a priority in 2004, and she would have to be thoroughly convinced there is a difference today as to the safety issues. 

Mr. Remick indicated he didn’t say it was a traffic issue.  He indicated the issue had more to do with Bellows Road.  He knows there is a sign now that addressed that issue of concern in 2004.  He indicated that the County weren’t aware of any safety and/or traffic issues.  Discussion ensued by Ms. Nielson that this was still funded at that time, and that it will only get more traffic and would like to see more information on this concern.

Mr. Karkowsky agreed it may be important since we just added a traffic light in this area, and understand there have been commercial problems at this corner with trucks and cutting across this property noting that perhaps this should be studied further.    

Russ Lipari noted he is not an engineer, lives in this area for 37 years, and rarely ever had a problem getting thru this area at any time.  Grant you that there were problems with tractor trailers and with this signage at Bellows; this has helped the issue previously noted.  He indicated Mr. Visco had a similar opinion on this which he raised at the subcommittee level.   

Stan Omland:  taking what the county wanted would be detrimental and would render this lot useless.  The 200’ radius is ‘off the table’.  Mr. Omland reviewed this site and developed a plan that wouldn’t impact site that much.  Mr. Omland indicated that Mr. Hammond was more concerned with the County road and wouldn’t support this.  Accepting these findings he suggested that we seek the 100’ radius and ROW easement which wouldn’t affect their bulk areas, variances, etc. and would just be a future easement for roadway purposes.  He voiced concerns that the driveway on this plan would not give you adequate sight distance to the right.  Discussion ensued.

If the shared parking was allowed as represented, there is a net benefit of 12 additional parking spaces, and would avail applicant greater flexibility for renting space since as designed, no restaurant could be put in this.  Options reviewed and discussed.

That driveway that comes out to Jacksonville discussed.  Mr. Omland indicated that if left turns were restricted, this would improve safety of this driveway.  From a planning standpoint, he would want the best, but you can address this if you don’t want to have the common drive by responding to putting all of the parking on site, and redesign the driveway to limit it to right exit only.

Mr. Speciale:  what is traffic flow for daycare?  Mr. Omland:  if you combine driveways, there is no traffic on retail at that time in the AM.  In the afternoon, begins from 12-7.  There are some conflicts, but doesn’t believe a single driveway is a problem.  There is another driveway on Main.

Gary Lewis:  single driveway gives you an extended cue.  Art Maggio:  what is negative?  Delays and cost noted Mr. Omland, and construction costs and doing work on an open existing daycare site.  The landscape plan is beautiful but that would be broken up and isolated but from developer standpoint, they need the parking spaces to attract good tenants.

Mr. Sandham:  current plan doesn’t have sufficient parking for a restaurant like a Starbucks?  If they went to a common driveway and extended parking, there would be possibility of parking concerns with this type of activity and daycare. 

Art Maggio asked what the problem is if you leave the site as it exists now.  Mr. Omland:  thought this plan he designed addressed the issue, but he is happy with application, and regulating right turns in/out would solve some of the safety concerns. 

Mr. Chiocca:  when professionals met with county, did not stress to county to eliminate this plan, but stressed if the County proceeded, this lot is finished and this project would have never gone forward.  At this time, the revised report from County hasn’t been received.  He acknowledged he received Omland’s sketch Friday but Mr. Remick didn’t see it due to holiday. 

If the applicant goes in and makes changes, it will affect the detention ponds, a lot of engineering and thought went into this site as to handling of discharge, water quality measures, and the aesthetic look of the site.  The applicant wasn’t looking to design a more traditional parking lot, that this change would also eliminate some of that open space.  He felt this plan represents this project that the people would look favorable on it.  The elimination of these features would have a profound affect on applicant.  The applicant has always considered reasonable proposals and to extent project isn’t materially affected, the applicant would grant easement rights for road widening.  The concern is changing the plaza, physical changes to the driveway that wouldn’t enable this project to move forward as proposed.  The physical changes become relevant only when county wants to make these improvements noted Mr. Omland. 

Mr. Remick indicated: the application before the Board is what the county is looking at.  Mr. Omland indicated the county wouldn’t participate in a 100’ radius.  He indicated he wanted this planning in there just in case it is needed.  Doesn’t feel it impacts the site plan.  The question comes:  what if it happens.  Discussion ensued.  If this driveway is restricted to right in right out, he feels it is safer.  The county will not accept this 100’ radius.  We can fund these improvements, or maybe an accident at this intersection may prompt County but all this township wants now is planning consideration in place for the future. 

A4 is marked in as colored rendering.  You can do 100’ radius improvement and make entrance marked one in/one out. 

Ladis Karkowksy:  without doing the radius but moving driveway up, would this be ok and have a common driveway now? 

Mr. Remmick reviewed.  Impacts would be open space plotted area, and would encourage site to put parking similar but would be detached from building.  Don’t see this as a good alternative.  Mr. Omland’s suggestion that this driveway is right in and right out because this provides for future planning and simplifying applicant’s costs to a ‘what if’ situation.

Gary Lewis:  this concept of plaza and nature oriented project was a key component but putting a typical parking lot there is the one thing residents didn’t’ want.  This type of plaza design smacks out exactly what ordinance called for.

Mr. Sandham agreed that he likes affect of the current design, and questions if any change occurs, will that result in an increase in speed.  If you make a driveway a right in and right out, doesn’t that force the other driveway on Main road entrance as adequate?  Mr. Omland indicated this driveway on Main would add more vehicular movement. 

Applicant indicated this site has complied with all of the setbacks off of Main Street, that the applicant has met all the walkway designs meeting both minimum and maximum setbacks.  Plan reflects proposed sidewalks on Main Street with landscape planters and sidewalk for street front access.   Details are specific and are incorporated.

Mr. Tobias:  concern on entrance as to movement.  Mr. Omland agreed with concern and indicated this would have to be adjusted to ensure difficulty with a ‘left hand’ maneuver and could be accomplished as part of construction techniques.

Russ Lipari:   based on curb the way it is, it is a traffic calming device, better to have a slower turn so that you didn’t hit someone coming out of other driveway.  You can make a left on Main.  Sight distance is 250’ on Main.

Poll of board members found:  applicant should continue with this design as drawn.  Victor Canning:  concurred with Mr. Lewis comments about Towaco ordinance.  Tony  Speciale:  same comments; Jim Sandham:  suggest we retain right to  have easement  and fine with plan; Larry Hines agrees, Mr. Tobias:  is there a way to change the throat to make sure it is a right turn only feeling it may be safer; Deb Nielson disagrees feeling we should retain the easement which is a short term fix but that it is our obligation to plan for the future and there should be less ingress and egress  and we should reduce points of access feeling one access is more appropriate.  She indicated she likes the plan, but her preference is for fewer entrances; Russ Lipari:  have no problem with this plan.  Gary Lewis:  take the easement, leave plan as is. Art Maggio feels the plan works and to take the easement.

Mr. Chiocca indicates applicant proposes mixed use; reviewed the accesses to the site, along with improvements discussed this event, there will be 32 new parking spaces  utilizing 10 spaces on Goddard, to offset this loss, and propose to construct 10 new spaces on 30.04.  It should be noted that there are provision for up to 18 spaces, and applicant chose to create 10 new spaces as part of previous approval to accommodate parking and minimize coverage.   Provided pedestrian circulation, street signs and sidewalks around building and plaza area, and continues around stormwater management area, and sidewalk adjacent to 10 spaces on adjacent lot.

Applicant is putting in a paver driveway along sidewalk, adding many streetscape amenities, decorative streets lights and planters, benches along frontage of building and incorporated green aspects of the building.  Applicant provided a bike rake for access to site and in addition, something else to help soften look was added:  all sidewalks will be permeable pavers to allow runoff to go back into the soil mitigating the impervious coverage on site.  Site proposed a dumpster area in rear of the site and it is segregated to contain refuse and recycling area.  Next to dumpster area will be a loading area.  Parking is adequate for proposed uses.  One variance is lot 30.03 for 46.1 vs. allowable 40% for impervious.  Mr. Remick explained the benefits of using features to argue that the variance for impervious is not detrimental. 

Could parking be on 30.03, could all parking be provided on this site? Was question asked by Board?  Mr. Remick indicated that it could, but would increase impervious coverage on this site, but combined coverage on both lots if added together would be in compliance.  This concept would have minimal impacts to site, would continue the landscaping plan as shown, with only some minimal reduction in landscaping in northwestern corner, but remainder of area would be landscaped as shown.

This applicant cannot satisfy all of the parking on this site, they need a waiver since there is no physical connection, and while this expansion in day care is ok, question is:  is the parking better here or on the site itself.  Discussion ensued on having all of the parking designed for this site vs. sharing on Goddards.  Mr. Remick indicated they could provide ten spaces in total.  Alternate plan is shown on the site plan, and the additional parking would be in that general area of northwesterly area of lot.  Gary Lewis asked if you include these spaces, do you lose pedestrian linkage to day care.  There is a pedestrian walkway on Jacksonville Road.

Treatment for storm water utilities in CWR district discussed.  Mr. Remick indicated the applicant is proposing to exceed impervious coverage and to meet the requirements of the enhanced stormwater management explained benefits of this system and aquifer.  Basin varies in depth with the greatest being 8’ in southwestern part of basin and emergency spillway is 2 to 2 1/2’. 

Mr. Tobias:  sediment runoff being addressed, but what provisions for car runoff?  Mr. Remick indicated it is part of the filtration layer in bio retention basin and this technique addresses this.

Mr. Remick:  as to ground water recharge, applicant is required to recharge 110% of runoff.  This design provides 153% which significantly enhances impervious area and runoff.  Also meets retention basin.

Stormwater management basin will be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs and ground cover and won’t look like a sandpit, will have a meandering sidewalk here and around plaza area to attract butterflies, and will have small bollards and affect will creates nice atmosphere.  Applicant also added landscaped walls at frontage of building, and focus is on use of ornamental plantings which he tried to pick species that weren’t water intensive.  One of great parts of water basis, the water should be self sustaining in this situation in this environment.

Russ Lipari:  stormwater management system was reviewed and both memos accepted the lighting and landscaping plans.  Only outstanding per Mr. Burgis, will be to provide two affordable housing units.  Have two one bedroom units marked as affordable units noted applicant.  Discussion ensued on COAH requiring a 50/50 split.  13% of affordable housing must be allocated for very low income, so there would be a requirement for a waiver on this issue from COAH.

Opened to public…

Hearing none, closed in a Motion made by:  Closed Russ Lipari seconded Gary Lewis

On adding of parking spaces on site that would mean this lot would require more of an impervious coverage variance, it would result in 50.l0 where it was 46.1 if parking were on adjacent site.  It was felt that if you take it on a project like in one site, it would be a wash.

Gary Lewis:  applicant will comply with maximum extent feasible in sustainable construction and some attempt should be made with construction of site.  Mr. Chiocca indicated they are acceptable to this. 

Gary Lewis:  subject to compliance with all testimony of record, revisions in accordance with testimony as offered, all parking on site, providing two affordable housing one bedroom apartments, variances for impervious coverage, alteration of driveway off Jacksonville to ensure safety subject to Mr. Omland’s review/approval, compliance with all agency reports, and professional reports, as well as granting of the private easement of 100’ radius; revision of architectural plan to ensure no visibility of any rooftop appliances, DA, normal applicable provisions of site plan approval.

Seconded: Larry Hines

Roll call:  Victor Canning, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Jim Sandham, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Ladis Karkowsky – Yes; Lawrence Tobias (alt#2 ) yes, & Deb Nielson:  no





Chairman Karkowksy asked Mrs. White to put back on the agenda the reporting of the liaisons to the Planning Board indicating that this reporting would start the second meeting of February and be listed every other month. 

Meeting adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by:  Gary Lewis, seconded Larry Hines

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

Absent with explanation

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Last Updated ( Monday, 23 February 2009 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack