MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2009
Maggio- present Mr. Karkowsky - present
Sandham - present Ms.
Nielson - present
Lipari - present Mr. Lewis – present
Hines - present Mr. Canning - present
Visco - present Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present
Tobias (alt#2) - present
public testimony and/or questions.
Karkowsky: asked for assistance from the members on calling land use if they
see any signs or banners around town if they are unsightly so we can address
same at that level. The chair indicated
that the Planning Board wants to work with business in town, but they do not
want to see this type of activity abused, noting that we are trying to develop
a new temporary sign ordinance that will address today’s times, and when this
is completed at some time in future, we will get notice out to all of the
businesses in town.
Tobias: asked if chair wanted his Board
of Health report since he attended their meeting on the prior night. Mr. Karkowsky asked him to hold it until next
meeting when these reports are scheduled, reminding board members that the
second meeting of every month would be the night to offer these reports.
Hines: noted some concerns with the
amount of real estate signs on one lot, asking if the number were regulated. Mrs. White will address.
- Request for Input on vacation of Rt. 202 Right of Way @ Schneider Road
Mr. Burgis presented a aerial view of the property
area as it relates to the request from Township Committee to investigate
development possibilities should the town decide to offer the areas adjacent to
Rt. 202 on both sides of Schneider
indicated that the west side of corner consists of 14,400 sq. ft. Zoning in area is OB2A zone. There is a ROW behind this property that is about
less than 1/3 of an acre. On the east
side of Schneider, that parcel is less than 8,000 sq. ft. in size, with the ROW
to the rear that is about 2/10th of an acre. This is also the OB2A office zoning. The properties to south are located in the R27A
He discussed the possibilities of development on
the properties: in the OB2A there is a
25% FAR, so on left side of street, you would be able to develop a 3600 sq. ft.
footprint and on the east side, you can’t build a building you couldn’t build anything
larger than 2,000 sq. ft. If the
undeveloped ROW was vacated and added to tract, it would add another 3200 sq.
ft. on the east parcel and 3600 sq. ft. on the west side.
If this property were to be developed on its own, this
would be difficult since the yard requirements for OB2A on both sides would be
eaten up. However, you do have an
unresolved ROW to the rear of the lots, and it would be suggested the community
vacate this property as well since this is the only way there may be any
possibilities. The ROW shows on tax maps
as a municipal ROW.
do you deal with residential zoning to the south of the ROW because without a
change of zone, it would be difficult to develop in view of mixed zoning? Do you have to sell it at auction? Aren’t some of these property owners in rear
already maintaining the property now? What
of unpaved unimproved ways that are not listed in municipal plans for
improvement. Mr. Burgis indicated if it
is a conforming lot, it would go to auction, but these lots are substandard
under OB2A zone. The township would have
to conduct an appraisal of the land to determine sale value if they wish to
pursue selling the property. Mr. Burgis
indicated he would commit his findings to a report for the March 26th
Frier & Levitt – 84
Bloomfield Ave. Suite B – B: 173, L: 7 –
law office 625 s.f. – hours of operation
9am-5pm – 10 employees – no outdoor storage of vehicles – signage requested
Concerns raised relative to the number of
employees reflected for such a small area of rent. This waiver rescheduled for further
discussion and information at the March 26th agenda meeting.
PMN08-17– CAMPIONE - 4 Montville Ave. & 53 Rt. 202 – B:
51.02, L: 1 & 27 – minor
subdivision with variances– Approved
2/12/09 Eligible: Russ Lipari,
Deb Nielson, John
Visco, Art Maggio, Jim Sandham, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale
& Lawrence Tobias, Ladis Karkowksy
Motion made by: Russ Lipari
Seconded: Deb Nielson
Roll: Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson,
John Visco, Art Maggio, Jim Sandham, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Lawrence
Tobias, Ladis Karkowksy - Yes
Minutes of 2-26-09- Roll call: Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson,
JohnVisco, Art Maggio, Gary Lewis, Jim Sandham,
Tony Speciale & Lawrence Tobias, Ladis Karkowksy
Motion made by: Russ Lipari
Seconded by: Jim
Roll call: Unanimous
Burgis Associates Litigation for: $90; Trust
for: $275, $93.75, $62.50,
$500, $210, $240
Michael Carroll, Esq Trust for: $67.50
Omland Engineering O/E for: $405; Trust for:
$236.25, $236.25, $90,
$540, $742.50, $810
Motion made by: Larry Hines
– Preliminary & Final Site plan – Block: 160 Lot: 4 - 17 Hook Mountain Road
carried from 8/14/08 & 10/23/08 & 1/22/09 schedule; 2/26/09 schedule -
Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, Larry Hines, Gary Lewis, Victor
Canning, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, John Visco, Tony Speciale ACT
Present: Steven Schepis, Esq. – summarized that the
purpose of this evening meeting was to review the colored rendering & floor
plans of facility, noting all engineering aspects of the site plan have been
Cutillo, Architect – previously sworn – credentials accepted prior.
evidence: A1 – colored rendering –
3/12/09 – exhibit
reviewed: main entrance around back of
building (Rt. 80 elevation). The side is
where the garage door is located. This
plan last revised 2/24/09 consisting of six pages are the newest architectural
plans. First page is not the same on
architectural plans as the exhibit displayed except for the elevation showing
garage side. On page two is the rear
elevation which is main elevation. There
is a list of materials on first page.
Rendering displayed depicts color theme.
reflects interior plan: parking area,
with one way in and one way out, and it will be a secure area. There are four living units on this level on
the downhill side of site, with access off of the main area with windows and
balconies. Upside site is mechanical
area, recreation area and a large storage area.
upper level, first level, there is grade access from behind building which is
depicted in rendering. There is an entry
way, main lobby with one to two bedroom units.
As to the size of the units, by minimized some of the common space, they
took advantage of the area without interfering with the circulation and
increased size of all of the units. On
A4, there are four one bedroom units of 1126 sq. ft. up to 1300+ square feet
for larger units. Top level requires
elevator. Last plan is roof plan.
Lewis asked about more treatment on windows.
Mr. Cutillo indicates there are mutton bars (rendering scale does not
reflect it). Each unit has its own
balcony and storage area, noting there are 27 units with one caretaker
Carroll indicated that legislation may adopt regulations allowing relief from aged
restricted housing, asking if the applicant would consent to adding a deed
restriction to this property, which would mean the approval was considered not
only under existing zoning but also with the deed restriction which gives more
of a contractual obligation. Chancery
division would be the place for relief if governing body didn’t approve relief
from the deed restriction if asked. Mr.
Carroll elaborated. Mr. Carroll
indicated his concerns, and if the development complies with RSIS standards,
there is no matter of right, and this may be something that should be further
reviewed. Developer’s Agreement should
also be considered if approved with the wording on applicant’s agreeing to deed
restriction of aged restrictive housing.
Schepis: reviewed history of prior
review for hotel, denial and the court’s actions. He indicated at this time applicant approached
township about aged restricted housing zone, and discussed the need at that
time for low income housing, which would have at that time only required 3 of
the 27 units to be affordable housing, and if more is requested, this would
affect the viability of project.
Discussion ensued on the changes in COAH and the Highlands/DEP Scare Resource
Schepis asked the Board allow only 3 vs. the 6 required under today’s
requirements. He indicated the developer
would petition the council for relief of the required number to 3. Applicant would agree to deed requirement
insuring it be age restrictive but asks for only 3 units to be designated as
Burgis indicated this project generates the need to develop 6 affordable
housing units, and if board allows a waiver of 3, the Township would be
required to pick up 3 more units due to loss.
Also discussed was that this Board wouldn’t have right to waive this
number, but pursuant to this, an applicant can provide some units on site, and could
also find another place in Township for appropriate development of the other 3
required units: regardless of how you
cut it, there is a 6 unit requirement.
Schepis: what is the town’s credit
percentage number requirement for senior citizen units? Mr. Burgis indicated we do not yet know this
number but we should know our numbers based on the Highland’s projection sometime this summer,
but assumes 25% less than currently published number of today.
Canning: in that we agreed to Highlands, wouldn’t we be restricted from giving him reduction
numbers. Mr. Burgis: we are participating with Highlands
and any project at end will be reviewed by COAH, so they take a look at this
anyway, and they would be curious where we permit 3 where 6 is required.
Schepis: agreed at the time when first
discussed to have the 20% set-aside, but noted that the ordinance which created
this development doesn’t require the developer to provide affordable housing
within this zone. Mr. Burgis: the township has to provide and submit a
Housing Element, but if the developer doesn’t provide for this, we as a
community are required to provide.
ensued on this subject with Mr. Schepis arguing that he felt it was the township’s
obligation to provide for the affordable housing element and if the Planning
Board requires this applicant to provide 6, this project will not go forward if
it is imposed. Mr. Karkowsky: this township is obligated by six units, so
why municipality should be punished for development. All other developments in the municipality
have a COAH need. Mr. Sandham voiced
concerns as to whether or not this would be widespread in granting of a waiver
vs. requiring the number as indicated.
Karkowsky asked if the applicant would stipulate he is obligated and would
construction six affordable units, clarifying that the applicant may not agree
to deed restriction on removal of age restricted units; or would give age
restricted unit restriction with 3 units only.
Board members discussed issue, with most all agreeing that they would
not want to see the township absorb the this affordable number. The Planning Board support that the applicant
would be required to submit 6 COAH units and that the community should not
absorb their COAH requirements.
ensued. The affordable would be rental
units, and it is understood that the units have to be affirmatively marketed
and cannot be given preference. The
Township coordinates this aspect of the COAH plan. Discussion ensued on affordable units being
equal to market units. Mr. Schepis
indicated he received a call from Judge Bonzonelis on the hotel court case,
reminding board that in lieu of coming back with hotel the applicant agreed to
this rezoning. Agree to comply with the COAH requirements
relative the six units, with deed restriction.
Schepis indicated the applicant would provide for number of COAH that would be
assigned and that the units would be deed restriction, but wanted the ability
to rent the market units vs. fee simple.
Ms. Nielson noted she had no problem with rental component for low/mod
but has concerns with rental apartments for the entire development. Mr. Karkowsky voiced similar concerns.
Lewis: asked Mr. Carroll if it wasn’t
true that the form of ownership is not a basis of zoning. Mr. Carroll indicated that this was recently
decided in a similar lawsuit where it was questioned and that it was found marketing
and occupancy is irrelevant as to ownership.
Applicant asked for a brief recess.
In a Motion made by: Russ Lipari, seconded by Larry Hines, board
recessed. Upon return to meeting:
Schepis indicated the applicant agreed that they do not need a caretaker unit,
that they will comply with 6 COAH units, and agreed that at least 14 of entire
number would be rental. Won’t use
caretaker unit, and will go with 6 COAH and will agree that at least 14 will be
owner occupied, and that this deed restriction would be part of the
Karkowsky asked for clarification on the total numbers. Mr. Schepis reviewed numbers: 28 units with 6
affordable units = 22 markets, 8 of these markets may be rented. Discussion continued between applicant and
board with various concepts discussed.
Viswathan, Owner – previously sworn
Viswathan, Owner- testified if units can’t be sold, and you have to make
payments, his expenses could be made up by rentals. He would like to be able to have that ability
to rent if units do not sale since he would prefer sale.
was agreed that the applicant would attempt and actively market and sell as fee
simple, and if he can’t, he would come back to the Township, he agreed to comply
with providing six affordable in accordance with COAH requirements which will
be rental component, he agreed to deed restriction on aged restriction units.
opened to public, hearing none closed unanimously.
made by: Russ
Lipari seconded: John Visco to grant preliminary and final
site plan for the development of 28 aged restricted units, 6 of which will be
COAH affordable rental component, the remaining fee simple units; granting of
requested sign variance, compliance with revision of the plan in accordance
with testimony offered, compliance with all professional reports, compliance
actively marketing market units for sale fee simple, and if he can’t, applicant
is subject to reappear before the Planning Board, compliance w with COAH requirements
of 6 units in accordance with COAH requirements, which units will be rental
component; agreement to deed restriction relative to aged restricted occupancy;
subject to a DA, compliance with agency findings except for Morris County
Planning Board report recommendations which will be further reviewed and
coordinated by the Board engineer; final report from revisions/fire emergency
access from Fire Prevention bureau for fire access; Lighting shown on site is
the standard down lit shoebox fixtures;
Mountain Road, there are double fixtures and two addition fixtures to comply
with streetscape; waiver from installation of street lights on Bloomfield
Avenue; installation of cross walks; Applicant will get amended report from
Water & Sewer in this change indicating they don’t require water line be
looped and plan hydrant revisions will be shown; compliance with soil removal
ordinance and blasting policy of the township, locating all construction
stockpiling, construction and/or sales trailers, temporary development signs
and/or facilities associated with construction (porter potty, temp. fencing),
all of which must be removed prior to the release of final CO within specified
timetable,(all of which must be done at the time of final CO), ownership and balance
of building is marketing and sale of 22 units in fee simple, which applicant
indicates reserving of right to appear to Planning Board if units do not sell
(six months from the release of CO); extension of the property and granting of
emergency easement should adjacent property come back for future expansion (San
Dol), including paving by applicant up to property line; submission of an
alternate landscaping plan near three retaining walls on access drive and if
rock exists when construction, applicant will prepare an alternate plan at that
time subject to review approval of the Board professionals. Detail on landscape
shows a 5x6’ wooden sign. Montville
Residency with address sitting on two posts on a landscape aisle. Freestanding sign requires a variance. A pedestrian theme and connection linkage is
required as part of this approval as well as compliance with sign theme of
freestanding sign; consideration of mountable curbs to accommodate additional
parking subject to board engineer review and approval; DOT approval; ;DEP
approvals; Compliance with COAH as stipulated, any and/all other typical
conditions imposed as part of a major site plan approval.
call: Eligible: Ladis
Karkowsky, Deb Nielson,
Larry Hines, Gary Lewis, Victor Canning, Art Maggio, Russ
Lipari, John Visco,
PSPP/FC -08-03 – PINEBROOK
(Shoppes @ Montville) Block: 162, Lot: 3, 4, 6, 7 – Old Bloomfield & Rt. 46
– Notice Acceptable& Eligible voters from 10-6-08 & 1/22/09 schedule – Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson,
John Visco, Gary Lewis, Russ Lipari,
Larry Hines, Art Maggio,Tony
and Vic Canning
noted this application was rescheduled to April 23, 2009 meeting w/new notice
required. Time to act extended by attorney
to said date.
BUSINESS (this application was heard
first this evening)
PMN08-16 VAN SYCKEL – 14 & 16 Woodland Rd – B:
140, L: 9 &
Lot line change – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 6/2/09
Present: Gary Needleman, Esq.
Needleman indicated this is an application to adjust lot line between property
owners resulting in intensifying and/or reducing existing
non-conformities. Mr. Needleman reviewed
variances required on lots which are located in R27A zone. These are existing lots. Minimum lot area is 27,000, min. lot width at
building line is 122’, where 115’7 and 109’ requested, lot 9 is 20,801, and
propose 17,351 sq. These are
pre-existing non-conformities which will not significantly change.
is to relocate a shed from applicant’s mother’s adjacent property to his
property. The lot line would be more of
at a right angle. These lots were
created back in the 40’s.
Van Syckel sworn in by Mr. Carroll, as well as board professionals.
Lewis indicated that if the lot line was adjusted, up near proposed lot line at
intersection of Woodland
and continue in same plane and split triangle between existing lot line, you
can get another 2,000 sq. ft. making lot more conforming.
Van Syckel: Testified he grew up in
house located on lot 9, and bought adjacent house on lot 4. He had installed a
shed on this lot anticipating future purchase of this home site. Mr. Lewis:
one of the purposes of zoning is to not bring lots further out of
conformity with the zone. Mr. Syckle
indicated if you look at property line it cuts in front of the lot 9 home.
Nielson: asked applicant to look at
dimensions and bring the lot with a different tangent, agreeing it is not this
board’s policy to make a more nonconforming use. Board members discussed finding they would
prefer a larger area vs. street frontage.
indicated he had concerns with committing tonight on changes to the lot line,
and asked to be rescheduled. Gary Lewis indicated he needs to be convinced that
the property be looked at to give more equal lands. Ms. Nielson indicated board members should
visit this site and review. Mr. Van Syckel
indicated he requested and received a gate to install in front of his house to
eliminate thru traffic near the ROW and would want more road frontage to his
lot. Members felt more area would be
preferable vs. road frontage, indicating that they had no problem if the
applicant wished to ask for a variance to locate the shed closer to the property
line than 20’ side/rear required. Board
carried this to the April 23rd agenda in a Motion made by: Art Maggio and seconded Gary Lewis – Roll
call: unanimous – Ladis Karkowksy,
Victor Canning , Deb Nielson, John
Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio , Russ Lipari,
Jim Sandham, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale (alt#1) and Lawrence Tobias (alt#2)
adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by: Jim Sandham seconded by Gary Lewis.