Planning Board 3-12-09 Minutes 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 - present                             Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present

                                                            Mr. Tobias (alt#2) - present

Also Present:

Michael Carroll Esq.

Joseph Burgis, Planner






No public testimony and/or questions.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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 Lane.  He 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 zone. 

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. 

Concerns:  How 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 agenda.   


PMISC09-04 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 (Gardenview Realty)

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 Sandham

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

Seconded:  Tony Speciale

Roll call:  Unanimous




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 & 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 BY: 3/12/09

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 addressed.

Jim Cutillo, Architect – previously sworn – credentials accepted prior.

Marked into evidence:  A1 – colored rendering – 3/12/09 – exhibit

Display 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. 

A3 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. 

On 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.

Mr. 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 unit.   

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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 ban. 

Mr. 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 affordable units.

Mr. 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. 

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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. 

Discussion 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. 

Mr. 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. 

Discussion 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.  Discussion ensued. 

Mr. 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. 

Mr. 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:

Mr. 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 approval. 

Mr. 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. 

Pat Viswathan, Owner – previously sworn

Pat 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. 

It 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.

Meeting opened to public, hearing none closed unanimously.

Motion 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; On Hook 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.

Roll call:   Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, Larry Hines, Gary Lewis, Victor Canning, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, John Visco, Tony Special

            PSPP/FC -08-03 – PINEBROOK INVESTMENT (Shoppes @ Montville) Block: 162, Lot: 3, 4, 6, 7 – Old Bloomfield & Rt. 46 – Notice Acceptable& Eligible voters from 10-6-08 & 1/22/09 schedule – Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Art Maggio,Tony Speciale and Vic Canning                                                                                                                             ACT BY:  5/31/09

Secretary noted this application was rescheduled to April 23, 2009 meeting w/new notice required.  Time to act extended by attorney to said date.


NEW BUSINESS (this application was heard first this evening)

PMN08-16 VAN SYCKEL – 14 & 16 Woodland Rd – B: 140, L: 9 &

4- Lot line change – Notice Acceptable                      ACT BY: 6/2/09

Present:  Gary Needleman, Esq.

Mr. 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. 

Purpose 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. 

Mr. Van Syckel sworn in by Mr. Carroll, as well as board professionals. 

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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. 

Ms. 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. 

Applicant 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)



Meeting adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by: Jim Sandham seconded by Gary Lewis.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Last Updated ( Friday, 03 April 2009 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack