MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22,
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
Tobias (alt#2) - present
Stan Omland, PE
Joseph Burgis, AICP
Michael Carroll, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
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
Motion made by: Larry
Seconded: Gary Lewis
Roll call: Unanimous
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
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
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.
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:
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
Rescheduled with notice preserved to
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. 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.
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
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
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
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
Meeting adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by: Gary Lewis, seconded Larry Hines
Linda M. White