Planning Board Subcommittee Minutes 7-21-09 Print E-mail


8:30AM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building



Ms. Nielson                    

Mr. Lipari   

Mr. Visco    


Board of Ed/Fire Commissioners on River Road courtesy review of proposed renovation of 86 River Road

Present:  Charles Grau, Board of Ed Member

               Jon Alin, Board of Ed Member

               Jim Tevis, Business Administrator

               David Ruitenberg, Esq. – Schwartz Simon Edelstein & Zitomer

               Karen Cortilleno, Board of Ed Member

               Greg Somjen, Architect

               Jos. C. Pjura, Assoc. – Parette Somjen Architects


              James Woltman, Board of Fire Commissions

                       Wilson Garcia, Lawrence Korinda, Architect

              Larry Korinda, Principal for Fire House Renovation

             Mike Karlan, Design Review Committee

             Frank Bastone, Administrator

             Tim Braden, Township Committee member

             Robert Menzel, Building Inspector

Mr. Karlan explained the goals and objectives of the Design Review Committee noting they are comprised of various specialists and experts in design/building/landscaping industries:  their goal to enhance and promote designs that enhance the area.  His opinion is that this building is not something we would promote and in fact, would ask for many upgrades that are consistent with the DRC’s recommendations and design requests for business and commercial sites in the township.

He mentioned that there are no dumpster enclosures and that there is little being planned for the exterior of this building, landscaping, parking lot and site design upgrades.

Mr. Menzel voiced some concerns on the common areas and how this would be handled.  He also indicated that the truss design will require some strengthened of the interior walls.  His concern is was it the right use group.  They indicated that they are using Group B, and wondered if they wouldn’t be eligible for as a candidate for Group 3?  Mr. Alin indicated that the issue is all financial as to improvements on site.  They have a budget and cannot go over it.  The prior architect came in with this bid for a new building, and ultimately this is what the residents voted in, regardless of what they want.

Mr. Bastone asked how this works when there are two entities involved due to the roof and the common joining at this area.  It would be easier if fire department went first, but the Board of Ed has to include necessary work and scheduling to accommodate the work.  Mr.  Korinda indicated that it will be tricky but can be done.  Fire Department will stop their work at the line of demarcation:  It would be nice to see the entire roof extended but this is a joint venture. 

Mr. Somjen indicated he would meet with the DRC if a meeting is desirable after today.  Mr. Somjen reminded members that they do have a requirement to post up to $100,000 ($10G per year) and some of these monies would be used for parking lot costs, etc.

Ms. Nielson voiced strong concerns on visibility of rooftop appliances.  If the grading was dropped from 2 to 3, are there monies saved to accomplish these upgrades.  Mr. Korinda indicated he feels the intersection of the roofs is manageable.

Mr. Somjen reviewed the rooftop issues, noting there are four sections with different rooflines, high near fire bay, low near meeting room, council chambers higher, remaining flat.  The truss roof will go over the council chamber to near ball park area.  The truss roof will stop 20’ from the end, which will leave rest of roof flat.  He feels it will look symmetrical.  There are two flat sides, and he can raise front walls to make a fake façade and hide the rooftop appliances.

Discussion ensued on costs and expenses for upgrades, and that the Board cannot extend beyond the monies budgeted.  He indicated he would have to remove the flat roof, and talked about the shearing of the interior walls to accommodate the truss roof.  They do not have the monies for this type of work.

Mr. Alin reminded that the Board of Ed has a 1.5 M budget with a 5% contingency on their plan.  He talked about the possibility of using reserves for parking lot and landscaping.  Ms. Cortillino answered in response of going out to referendum fo r more money on the project that it would require a super majority or 60% voter approval.  Ms. Nielson indicated that the Township also gave monies ($70G) for asbestos removal.

Mr. Somjen indicated there is no rendering for the entire building representative of what this building would look like upon completion by both parties.  He indicated that the façade will be repaired and painted to match the new stucco color of the Fire Dept. section.  The 5% contingency is $60,000. 

Mr. Lipari:  the rooftop appliances, can they be moved to the ground?  Mr. Somjen indicated this wouldn’t work and would not give them any savings. 

There is a $125,000 shorfall with the monies to put a sloped roof across entire structure.  Questions asked about reducing work interior for office space.  Mr. Somjen indicated that the inside was already down to bare minimums. 

When asked about putting sloped roof in as alternate bid, Mr. Somjen indicated bid was received and that the Board must finalize this by August 24th.  General discussion ensued.

Mrs. White suggested that the Board consider setting up a master plan to incorporate those items previously discussed:  installation of streetscape lighting/security lighting/landscaping/parking lot upgrades/dumpster enclosures/signage.  This master plan should delineate what will be done each year until those items we require are completed installed and upgraded.  The Board indicated they would look at providing this to the Planning Board at their regular meeting.

Board Discussion Items (if time permits)

1)      potential development of All Brand Tire Site with a two story office building and/or retail first floor & offices above -  Rt. 46 – discussed.  Have the potential developer attend a subcommittee meeting in future.  Looks like it may be too intense.  Is there a way to get additional area?  Secretary will notify accordingly.

2)    potential new gym for 13,000 sq. ft. vacant space – Rt. 202 – second industrial building on right past overpass – Use is OB2A which is the same zone for current gym.  Discuss with  Mr. Burgis and see what his thoughts are and/or how to address this.

3)    Potential religious use – church, education & services – LaHue rear building – 8,000 sq. ft. – 2 Changebridge Road – Use allowed but area is constrained as to entrance and exits and amount of activity.  Applicant will need to file a site plan, and may need traffic impact study.

4)    Potential day care use for 34 Maple Avenue – request for review by subcommittee w/Planning Board engineer present – Board set another subcommittee meeting for August 13, 2009 at 8:30.  Professionals can attend subcommittee, but applicant must pay the escrow.  Coordinate for this review with professionals.

5)    Pinto – office/warehouse building – River Road – request for review by subcommittee – Board set August 13, 2009 as another subcommittee meeting.  Schedule this applicant to meet informally at this meeting.

6)    Coffee House – Petals @ Pine Brook – Chuk’s Landscaping – Changebridge Road – reflects seating – Use is not a permitted use.  Can either wait and see what the master Plan land use element responds to in this area, but at this time, not a permitted use and would require due to restaurant type of activity a use approval.

7)   PMISC09-25 Unitek USA – 45 Rt. 46 Unit 608 – B: 183, L: 6 – 3,042 s.f. office/4,258 s.f. warehouse for installers of Direct TV – 10 employees – 7am-6pm Mon-Sun – no vans parked overnight – UPS deliveries twice a week - signage to be in compliance with approved theme (First Industrial)

          Approved unanimously subject to use letter and agency reports. 

8)   PMISC09-26 Ryan Michaels Academy – 9 Church Ln – B: 123, L: 12 – 3.949 s.f. school/after school program for children with autism – 8am-6pm Mon-Fri – 6 employees (Montville Reformed Church)

          Secretary was asked to obtain input from Mr. Burgis, but noted this type of use is small and permitted, and as long as Mr. Burgis is ok with it, can be approved subject to use letter.  No signage approved.

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M.  White

Last Updated ( Monday, 17 August 2009 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack