MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES OF
JULY 14, 2009
Karkowsky – present
Nielson - present
Lipari - present
Visco - present
Board of Ed/Fire
courtesy review of proposed renovation of 86 River Road
Present: Charles Grau, Board of Ed
Jon Alin, Board of Ed
Jim Tevis, Business Administrator
David Ruitenberg, Esq. – Schwartz Simon Edelstein & Zitomer
Greg Somjen, Architect & Jos. C. Pjura, Assoc. – Parette Somjen Architects
Somjen indicated that there is a cap as to the amount of monies the Board of Ed
can use in renovating the existing building, indicating they will take 2/3 of
building, and the other 1/3 would be the fire department’s responsibility. In the beginning of the project, the township
administrator, Frank Bastone,
indicated that the Township Committee asked that these entities coordinate the
renovation and occupancy of the building together.
architect for the fire department, Lawrence Korinda, presented some sketches
which indicated slopes roof designs, but shortly there after, there was a
dividing line established and each entity worked separately
fire department is putting on a truss roof and re-stucco to the façade they will
occupy, while the Board of Ed will patch and repaint with the same colors.
indicated that they do not have the monies to install a truss roof, nor do they
have the time explaining the constraints on the bid process. As to the monies, they have agreed to put
$10,000 each year into account for maintenance, up to $100,000; lease with
township is $1 per year for a ten year period.
They went to citizens with the amount they anticipated for renovation,
and they cannot acquire any further funds. The bid process must be complete no later than
Board of Ed plans reviewed indicated office layouts; there are no parking
improvements proposed, and no major improvements. Several windows may be changed, though.
have taken a conservative approach to the façade and will match the colors, but
will paint not refinish. They will
repair where necessary before repainting.
members voiced concerns over the lack of upgrade to the building noting this is
a very focal location in the community, a busy intersection, and is adjacent to
busy baseball fields and garden center.
The members voiced that they had hoped that the entire building would be
addressed since this a very old building and is in serious need of upgrades to
the façade and surrounding areas.
Board representatives were also informed that it is customary for the Design
Review Committee to also review this type of site, and would like the
opportunity to have their input.
voiced on flat building as to location of HVAC and visibility of rooftop
appurtenances. Mr. Somjen understood the
concern, and indicated that he would look at this issue for screening
Board’s business administrator, Bill Tevis indicated that any additional work
would have to be looked at and put into a budget at board level.
site improvements commonly asked for by the Planning Board on all of site plans
are: decorative streescape lighting and
signage. Were any proposed? Mr. Somjen indicated that they are proposing
no other changes to site.
voiced by members as to building lines not matching up properly, has this been
reviewed yet? Mr. Somjen indicated he
met with Fire Dept. architect in past, but not recently. He broght these concerns of roof ‘connection’
to the attention of the Fire Department’s Architect who indicated these
concerns would be addressed in the Fire Department drawings.
a lengthy discussion about needing to make sure all of these construction
details and/or lack of them are addressed, and since time is a problem, this
being on the Planning Board schedule for July 23rd, the subcommittee
asked if the Board of Ed could meet with the Planning Board subcommittee again
and Mrs. White would coordinate having the Fire Dept. and his architect present
so that we can have a better opportunity to review them against each other
before the Board meeting July 23rd.
Mrs. White was asked to invite Mike Karlan from the DRC, and if the
Construction Official is able to make it, would be good. Those that are involved in decision making at
both levels should be present.
Somjen indicated he would check, but Tuesday July 21st at 8:30AM
looked good for this meeting and would confirm.
Mrs. White to coordinate other parties (LW note: this meeting was firmed up with all parties
confirmed to attend).
PMISC09-24 Mr. Toys.com – 101 Rt. 46 unit 134 –
B: 181, L: 1 – retail toys and chocolate sales and kids birthday parties – 4
employees – hours of operation 9am-9pm Mon-Sun – signage in compliance with approved
theme (Anton) – Concerns on Parking
Present: Mike Lahue, owner and Nick Turi, tenant
Lahue explained that the tenant operation is done mainly over the internet, but
the national headquarters needed identity so this area was leased for that reason.
Turi indicated he would be storing train sets, and the types of parties he
would hold would be one at a time. There
wouldn’t be a need for a lot of parking for the toys since as stipulated, most
is over the internet. He is trying the
parties would be for 2 yr to 6 yr olds to supplement the activity, noting that
his busy season is obviously the few months prior to Christmas, but that it is
not a lot of retail activity involved.
There is an additional 50-60 parking spaces behind the facility which
can be utilized for overflow if needed, but there was never a problem, stated
by Mr. Lahue, with Gymboree which had a larger amount of children and
sign proposed is multi-colored. Mr.
Lahue indicated this building does not have a sign theme, and the coloring is
similar to that of Gymboree’s.
Subcommittee had no objection and in a Motion made by: Mr. Karkowsky, seconded by Mr. Visco, waiver
was approved subject to compliance with use letter, testimony offered, and all
Suppa’s - B: 162, L: 7 - 16 Rt. 46 - Zoning: B3- Route 46 and Old Bloomfield Avenue
– Comedy Night – Discussion on use of banquet hall as nightclub
Present: Steve Schepis, Esq. & Vinny Suppa, owner
The issue of having comedy
clubs discussed. Board members voiced
concerns of a nightclub activity and this atmosphere and use is not
permitted. Mr. Suppa indicated he felt
it was more of a banquet activity since it is set up more like a banquet party. He was hoping to do this once a month on
either a Friday or a Saturday. There are
usually two comedians, and this involves a dinner as part of price. There is no alcohol license on site.
Discussion ensued that
perhaps this type of activity may not be a nightclub use in view of absence of
a liquor license, but that the Township does not want to see other restaurants
deciding that this is a viable way to increase their business activities which
will then erode into the nightclub atmosphere that resulted years prior in
several restaurants being closed down for expansion of their use.
It was decided that Mr.
Schepis file a waiver, and that this issue would be reviewed by the board
attorney, planner, police and fire department.
The Board will discuss it if this is filed in time with the entire Planning
Board at their next meeting, or shortly thereafter at a future agenda
meeting. Mr. Schepis indicated he
wouldn’t make the July 23rd meeting but would be ready for the
August 13th Planning Board meeting.
George’s VW – Update from review of as built & calculations
for impervious coverage
Mrs. White indicated her
calculations of impervious finds that there is 200 sq. ft. more coverage than
previously approved. Concerns voiced
about this, and that the owner must remove the 200 sq. ft. in order to be in
compliance with prior approval, or come back to the Board with an amended
application to address the excess coverage (trailer for storage). Mrs. White will have Mr. Petrillo address
since it continues to be an open issue at court. It was also requested that owner remove the
junk cars from the flatbed since this is not a junkyard use and it creates
blight to the area.
Linda M. White