MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2009
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
Frank Bastone, Administrator
Braden, Township Committee member
Robert Menzel, Building Inspector
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Items (if time permits)
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.
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.
– 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
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
– 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.
Linda M. White