Planning Board 7-23-09 minutes Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

Minutes of July 23, 2009

No New Business to be Conducted Past l0: 00PM

ROLL CALL

Mr. Maggio - present                             Mr. Karkowsky - absent           

Mr. Sandham - absent                          Ms. Nielson - present                           

Mr. Lipari – present - Acting Chair         Mr. Lewis – present

Mr. Hines - present                               Mr. Canning – present

Mr. Visco – present                               Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - absent

                                                            Mr. Tobias (alt#2) – present

Also Present:

Stan Omland, PE

Joe Burgis, Planner

Michael Carroll, Esq.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

PLANNING BUSINESS

No public.

Gary Lewis indicated it was worth noting that the Master Plan and Highlands Planning Board subcommittee met earlier this evening considering current initiatives and the impact of the Highland’s on Montville.  Very soon the general public will see info put forth and developed by the Highlands for consideration by Montville. 

There is a lot of data presented, the Board will consider this data and they will make decisions as to what this role may be.  It must be made very clear that during these reviews these are documents and work products of the Highlands and they are not a work product of Montville.  The documents we have from the Highlands will be marked and dated as draft and we are looking for comments from the board professionals.  It must be made very clear that this is all that is: draft documents for review and nothing will be finalized at the Planning Board level until the Planning Board is prepared and informed enough for the board to make their decisions.  These documents are not the opinions of the Planning Board and/or Township Committee.

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

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

Mr. Lipari indicated there have been several subcommittee meetings on this subject noting there are certain limitations as to budget at the Board of Ed level.  He also indicated that there are items that the Planning Board would like to see done on this site and to the building acknowledging that the Planning Board does not look at costs of these upgrades, and asked the Board of Ed to begin their presentation:

David Ruitenberg, Esq. – Schwartz Simon Edelstein & Zitomer& Greg Somjen, Architect– Parette Somjen Architects presented presentation

David Ruitenberg, as legal counsel, indicated he is here this evening since the Board of Ed is looking to execute a lease using the old town hall on River Road for their offices.  Mr. Somjen presented the layout of plans proposed; noting revisions were submitted again on July 6th.  Greg Somjen indicated he will speak to this plan and to future improvements.

Mr. Somjen presented a quick over view as to how his firm inherited this review process, reviewing the history of the project noting this renovation was one of his recommendations to the Board.  Basic components exist and the building itself has a lot of value as to the building envelope and structure.  He indicated the Board of Ed is taking ½ of the building, are gutting interior and are doing relatively simple renovations to get them out of the existing rental space.  As part of the on going discussions, he confirmed due to the budget there is very little that was proposed to the exterior façade. 

One of the items he noted was that the fire department started their plans sooner (their plan consisted of a truss roof and stucco of exterior garage with demo).  When it was decided on sharing, the Board architect was going to coordinate with them on their building. 

The Board subsequently opened bids and the plans are without exterior improvements due to budget amount since they can only plan for what the budgeted amount approved by voters was. 

Mr. Somjen indicated the improvements are almost all internal:  will be patching walls, replacement of windows and replacement of existing flat roof with new flat roof since building needs to be weather proofed.  As part of lease arrangements with town, monies are set aside for future maintenance and improvements, and some of those things that will be discussed, will be implemented over the next several years so that monies are put into place to cover individual components of upgrades discussed. 

Mr. Lipari asked if this concept represents the Planning Board subcommittee recommendation on improvements recommended at last meeting.  Mr. Somjen believed it did.   Mr. Ruitenberg was asked to put some information as to some of the improvements that the board would hope to be able to make in coming years.

Drawings reviewed:  existing condition reviewed on first page; second sheet is the elevation.  The fire dept. bay is finished with stucco, and the Board of Ed will add this to the list of things to be done years down the road, but immediate plan is repairing and patching of block and painting the same color of the stucco so it would look the same not wanting to reinvent the wheel.  As part of the roof, where the truss roof stops is common entrance, but the fascia around roof end will be brown to meet fire dept.  Some windows will be replaced, and they are anodized brown similar to fire dept. colors.

There is mechanical equipment on roof, and are removing this and replacing with new equipment.  Screening of the equipment:  they will incorporate into the master plan a screen that will match the beige exterior wall cover made out of corrugated metal panels.

Dumpsters:  the Board of Ed indicated that they thought it was the fire departments.  They made a presumption it was Fire Company, and laid out a fence enclosure adjacent to tower, so access can be maintained to generator and grass area adjacent to building.  This is a typical slatted chain link fence similar to dumpster enclosure on a site like this. 

In reviewing lease arrangement, there is exterior area indicated and the area of the existing dumpster is not included in this dotted line, question asked as to whom would take responsibility for this.  Does the town take responsibility of this area?  This area should be reviewed to make sure the lines on the survey are properly delineated to incorporate those areas that are clearly under Board of Ed responsibility.   

Mr. Somjen indicated that in accordance with some of the Master Plan for the future, and the areas the subcommittee of the Planning Board noted, he noted:

No signs – no signs proposed at present, but the Board may have a sign in future

There are no handicap signs – they will install these now

As to buffering rooftop mechanicals – they intend to install a metal corrugated screen as part of the master plan.

Exterior paint:  they are painting and minimal repairs to the façade, but in master plan future they do intend to stucco remaining building

Parking lot improvements – none proposed at this time, but will look at this in future

Updating site lighting – none proposed at this time, but will look at upgrades in future

Basic landscaping and plantings – nothing proposed

Mr. Somjen indicated that all of the overgrowth adjacent to the exterior building walls will be removed and that will be grass that is planted with beds that require little maintenance is moving forward with master plan.  This will be done right away.

Mr. Lipari:  lighting concerns and handicap must be set now and approached.  Objective of lighting plan is to match what is happening on municipal complexes and candle power.  There are a couple of lights at site that does not match our lighting themes and questions if the lack of lights is a safety issue. 

Mr. Lewis:  this will be used as a public building.  Is the main entrance that will be used a conforming accessible entrance.  There is an obligation that this building is accessible. Board of Ed agrees that conforming accessible parking spaces with striping and signs and an accessible entrance will be provided. 

Discussion ensued on signage in the community, throughout private and public buildings, and all of the other items that should be put into a larger capital plan with the Planning Board asking what is the timeline for these upgrades? 

Mr. Ruitenberg could not say that the board is committed to a master plan, and this was only mentioned several days ago.  He is expecting that the Board of ED will prepare the master plan, will look at it and then will prioritize what elements of this master plan it can proceed with based on the budgetary constraints.  Discussion ensued on whether or not the Board of Ed will embrace a plan formally and publicly indicating that they will go forward with these upgrades. 

Charlie Grau:  this is a common building shared with fire house, and they will do improvements, but wants Planning Board to understand there is only a budget amount of 1.5M and the Board of Ed cannot spend a dollar over this.   They are aware of handicap requirements.  There will be no public meetings at this facility, and will hold only small board meetings.  They will address lack of handicap signage, no other signage proposed.  They cannot elaborate on new signage due to financial constraints. 

Gary Lewis: as to objection of upgrades to roof, are these reservations purely financial.  Lease exhibit discussed.  It is not executed at the township committee level.  Cannot do anything until the lease approved.  Gary Lewis indicated he would like to recommend to the Township Committee that these six or seven items discuss represent differences of opinion and offers that if these were addressed then these upgrades would represent a Montville class building and those improvements constrained by financing cap be memorialized so that there is no differences of expectations as to where all of us are and what we will see in the years to come.  Recommendation should be given to the Township Committee that prior to the lease being executed the Board submit a master plan indicating a time line and expectations so that there is no confusion in future.  Second:  John Visco

Ms Nielson indicated she will vote at the Township Committee level, and will abstain on this vote

Art Maggio asked for confirmation:  there are no students understands the value as far as education, and that this site is for use only for a administration and are staying in budget addressing basics only.  His concern:  Who is to say that there are other issues that need to be discussed, are they making a decision as to what these projects are? 

Mr. Somjen:  as part of lease there is a $10,000 posting with Township for maintenance of this building, so there are some monies being set aside for these master plan improvements that may be needed on this building, and this would minimize this issue. 

Russ Lipari:  maintenance can entail many things but a master plan should be set and provide for some flexibility to indicate what they are, and also the Board should agreed to these upgrades being done but not on the basis of maintenance.  Mr. Ruitenberg indicated to address this, maintenance fund may be for more improvements indicating in reality you are really maintaining and improving parking lot when resurfacing or repairs are made.  This is where the Township Committee has to develop wording to ensure that this lease agreement is clear to all parties as to what will be done now and in future. 

Gary Lewis indicated that once this building is occupied, the desired pitched roof is never going to happen if the truss roof isn’t installed initially:  it just isn’t going to happen.  Russ Lipari indicated our comments were discussed during two subcommittee meetings but it does not appear that any of this is a priority.   Gary Lewis: the truss roof won’t happen if it doesn’t happen now. 

Due to concerns with the location of the lease line, Mr. Ruitenberg was asked if the Township adjusts the lease line, does this push this back to state.  Mr. Ruitenberg indicated not sure if this impacts state approval but doesn’t think so.  There are community parking spaces not in leased area.  Another concern:  why are the parking lot spaces not accessible?  Assume whatever is in lease, it would be the Board’s obligation for anyone who slips and falls. Also, , there are three spaces that are inaccessible to anyone but Board of Ed. 

Photo 8 reviewed.  Land is level at entrance:  there are no steps.  Question:  is it definite that those parking spaces and accessibility will be supplied in initial phase.

Concerns voiced on Life safety compliance issues.  There is little lighting on site, and although recognizing there are no public meetings, when it gets dark in winter, the Planning Board would want to make sure that lighting is sufficient.  Our concern is that we would want to have this site reviewed to determine adequate lighting to insure that minimum illumination be provided for both sides. 

Gary Lewis asked if the recycling for both trash and recycling.  Mr. Ruitenberg agreed.

Joe Burgis also voiced concerns on lack of lighting

Larry Tobias spoke to truss construction roof:  is it possible to put a façade up without having a sloped roof.  Is it possible to take this into account as well as other items noted now?  Mr. Somjen:  part of the expense for new roof is that the interior walls have to be reinforced as shear walls, and this is construction to reinforce the building because right now, there is a flat roof building and only a certain amount affected to wind. When you have wind, there is more surface area for wind to hit, and as part of this truss roof construction, interior walls must be addressed to respond to this, and the Board would need to accommodate that work now.

Gary Lewis:  if they don’t put a roof on now, there will be no roof.  Russ Lipari:  we asked if there was some type of way to define a change in roofline to make it more appealing.  Fire Dept. felt that this roofline gives them a longer lifeline.  This was discussed at the subcommittee meeting.

Larry Tobias:  in order for the roof to be put on, the walls need to be reinforced now.  This is not going to be done at this time.  Mr. Somjen:  If the Board wishes to do this, they will do so but he didn’t price this component.  He indicated he can research this and determine if it can be installed in future.  Right now the bids came in within a few thousand of amount advertised.  There is a contingency, and if project runs smoothly, and they don’t use contingency, they will put it into some of the other upgrades earlier than expected.  If they wish to take this contingency, now vs. later, although he wouldn’t advise this in view of major repair work, he does think it would be a great idea but the Board of Ed has to make this decision.

Gary Lewis:  that truss roof system will not go on while building is occupied, and would require displacing the board office staff.  If the board wants to pursue the truss roof, one contractor should do entire work, discussing the council chambers which are higher, and knocking down of concrete walls to accommodate trusses.  Mr. Somjen indicated the mechanical equipment is more towards middle of space, and if these aren’t moved now, may not happen.  A mansard roof can be put on if walls supported.  Mr. Lipari asked that they look into this.

Mr. Tobias:  mansard would be cheaper than sloped roof, but Mr. Somjen indicated flat roof and different rooflines may not be compatible.

Mr. Nielson:  the fire department’s preference would be truss roof, and the Township Committee thought this would be a truss roof and if the only issue is monetary, and you indicated a contingency in contract could be used for this truss roof, you should do so.  This site is a highly focal point in Montville, highly visible, and our community was just recognized as a top community to live in by Money Magazine:  the Planning Board isn’t asking that this building be a Taj Mahal, but this is an ugly building and we have evolved significantly, and our other public buildings reflect upgrades that should be addressed. 

Mrs. White summarized the Motion as to the report recommended to the Board of Ed, a copy of which would be forwarded to the TC.  Said courtesy recommendation would incorporate request for a master plan prior to the execution of lease to make sure future upgrades are responded to on this site by Board of Ed.   

A report would be made to the Board of Education w/copy to the Township Committee. 

A question asked as the work of the fire department and their roof, will the timing of construction take place while Board of Ed offices vacant?  The Board of Ed attorney, Mr. Ruitenberg, indicating they are waiting on lease to be executed and these are some of the final decisions to start construction.  Most of work will take place over vacated section of board. 

Mr. Ruitenberg objected to the recommendation being made to township committee.

Charlie Grau indicated they are going to get a list of things drawn up and will guarantee that if something needs to be done outside of normal costs, they will appropriate accordingly. 

Roll call:  Russ Lipari, Gary Lewis, John Visco, Larry Hines, Larry Tobias, Vic Canning, Art Maggio   – yes

Mrs. Nielson – abstain

Fire Department No. 1, James Walton

Jim Barry – Montville Fire Dept.

Rendering reviewed.  Original plan was demolition of the one section of the building, but then the Township Committee wanted use of this portion of the building.  Their plans will require taking six feet off the old courtroom. 

Gary Lewis:  looks like truss roof to right is slighter wider than what is depicted, and there are more trusses and roof sheathing to the right of the common entrance.  What is the cost as it relates to this trust section.  $96,000 for the entire roof and this quote was for roof only and did not include the shear walls.  It was indicated that the construction was to be done by one contractor.  The cost to the Fire Department would $46,000 and this was a 2006 estimate

The plans for demo were shown to the Township Committee, but Township Committee ask that it be held open indicating they may use that section for something else.  They were told to get a price for the entire roof, the Board of Ed became involved, and this issue was held up again.  The Fire Department has been very accommodating, noted Mrs. Nielson indicating that the original proposal was to give this to the Fire Dept. and the Township Committee did promise a portion of the building to the fire dept.  The objective back then was to demolish remaining portion and monies were allocated to demolish building.

Gary Lewis asked for clarification that at that time the $96,000 quote was for the entire roof, not just section.  Mr. Walton concurred.

 

Deb Nielson noted that the fire department has their entrance in the rear, and the proposed lease shows Board of Ed is in front.  Mr. Walton concurred that their accesses will be thru rear.  This entrance in front is a common entrance way.  There is no parking in front for fire dept. Parking is only for fire officials.  General discussion ensued on concerns of handicap access for fire department and lease line, and a request was made to ask that Mr. Bastone look at this lease lot and ensure.  The Planning Board commended the renovation of their section of the old municipal building.  There is no need for a report, per Mr. Walton, to the Fire Prevention Bureau.

Master Plan – Goals & Objectives

Mr. Lewis, as chair of this committee, indicated that he visualizes the goals and objectives of a master plan as the top tier and as we go further and into more detail, everything the master plan encompasses is at the top of the pyramid.  There are goal statements and specific goal statements which underwent several meetings with board professional and Planning Board subcommittee.  He asked that the Planning Board accept the Goals and Objectives we prepared and would like to move forward.

Vic Canning:  having worked on five master plans, he commented the committee on the goals and objectives noting he can tell a lot of work and time went in it. 

Mr. Lewis continued:  One of the things that need to be addressed first in the Master Plan process are the goals and objectives since this will explain why some of the ordinances control will later be developed, and this document is important to the Board of Adjustment since is the board that relies upon intent of a Master Plan. 

If there is no input, great.  No comments expressed.  Mr. Lewis indicated he would like to make this process transparent, and as such, would like to get an ok to post these goals and objectives and distribute them to various entities and asked the township to set up webpage with these documents which would be posted as ‘draft’ since these items are far from being adopted.  He would like to get the data out so that residents can see and react to it and understand the process and what we are planning.  The secretary was asked to mark it draft, send it out to our agencies and to see about posting on the web as discussed.     

RESOLUTIONS

PMN08-16 VAN SYCKEL – 14 & 16 Woodland Rd – B: 140, L: 9 & 4- Lot line change –Eligible:

Ladis Karkowsky, 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)

Motion made by:  Gary Lewis

Seconded:  Larry Hines

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

WAIVERS

None

CORRESPONDENCE

None

MINUTES

Minutes of 6-25-09 – Ladis Karkowksy, Deb Nielson, Victor Canning, Larry       Tobias, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Tony  Special, Jim Sandham, John Visco, Larry Hines, Ladis Karkowksy, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis,

Motion made by:  Art Maggio; Seconded:  Larry Hines, Roll call:  Unanimous

INVOICES

Omland Engineering – O/E for: $135; Trust for: $843.75, $935, $67.50, $540, $877.50, $168.75, $420

Burgis Assoc. – O/E for: $156.25; Trust for: $375, $250, $437.50, $312.50

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Litigation for: $2,232.50 (K&K); Trust for: $135, $506.25, $33.75, $168.75, $33.75, $101.25, 33.75

Motion made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded: Art Maggio 

Roll call:  Unanimous

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

None

OLD BUSINESS

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:  8/31/09

                                                New Notice Required

Rescheduled to 9/24/09 Agenda

PMSP/F08-BORNSTEIN, DAVID – 73 Horseneck – 15 Woodland, B: 139.06, L: 17 & 18 – Major subdivision involving extension of Woodland to Horseneck Road- Variances: lot frontage & min. lot width at street and bldg. setback line for lot 17.01 – Notice Acceptable & rescheduled from agenda of    4/16/09 & 5-14-09 & public hearing of 6-25-09 Eligible:  Ladis Karkowksy, Deb Nielson, Victor Canning, Larry Tobias, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Tony  Special, Jim Sandham, John Visco, Larry Hines, Russ Lipari                         ACT BY: 8/31/09

(Note:  Mr. Lipari certified & is eligible to vote)

Professionals sworn.

Steve Schepis, Esq.  Summarized application’s location and intent, noting applicant wishes to create four lots out of two with demo on existing two homes, as well as paving private ROW to public for dedication.

Mr. Bornstein sworn.

Exhibit A1 – photo array – dated 7-23-09

Photo display reviewed.    Photo No. 2 is from Horseneck Road to entrance of Woodland, and 3rd is past dead end sign to private zone, 4th  is same direction, and 5th is from opposite of Woodland.  6th is from Woodland towards Horseneck road.

Mr. Bornstein discussed the gate, indicating he understood the gate was put up towards end of street since they didn’t want the thru traffic.  It was done without his knowledge.  On the day of review of lot 18 in purchasing this property/house, he conducted a site inspection to make sure everything was up to date and ready for sale.  It was then that he saw a dead end sign put in end of road towards Horseneck Road, and asked DeLuca’s, the original owners.   The gate is on private property.  At the time, he did not know, but can confirm that the gate was up day before he purchased property from DeLuca’s, almost 3 years ago. 

Mrs. White indicated at the prior meeting residents represented they approached governing body for permission and received same to erect the gate.

The issue of ownership of the ROW was not clear in 2005.  Since that time, Mr. Borstein investigated ownership of the lands within the ROW, received a title insurance policy, and since that time subsequently purchased the ROW.  There were issues in 2005 in ownership, which was resolved by acquisition of the properties.

Mr. Schepis indicated the ROW extends to public portion of Woodland road shown in front of lot 17.  There were 7 heirs of the last known owner, and Bornstein secured deeds from all heirs.  There is a description of this on the survey.  His intent was to always utilize and improve this ROW as a road. 

Since then, he maintains the pavement and widened it, and it was determined during the development access review that this road itself did not comply with the RSIS as to thickness of pavement.   The applicant will replace the road in same location for entire width and widen it to 26’.  The old road will be removed and a new road constructed to meet RSIS requirements. 

Mr. Schepis indicated that it was clear at that time in 2005 that this area was a private ROW and understands why the Township Committee released their approval for a gate since the Governing body indicated there was no public dedication to them on ROW. 

William  Greenburg, Esq. and resident of Woodland Road,  asked to speak for the other residents.  Most of what has come out is the history of the area; however, there are some inaccuracies.  This issue came to surface as early as 2002 due to condition of roadway and at that time the Township Committee was asked to improve Woodland road for water runoff and icing.  What happened back in 2005 was that the owner’s mental health dropped and the property was put into a conservatory.  It was determined that the road was a public ROW, that ownership was in doubt, and rather than insist of improvements for remaining Woodland Road, the residents felt that if thru traffic was cut off, it would solve the problems to fixing the rest of the road and they took the less expensive process.  The gate is posted right on the line where the public portion meets the private ROW.  This is the history. 

Who erected gate?  Mr. Greenburg indicated that to the best of his knowledge he thinks that the owner of Lot 1, Mr. Paradise put this in but the gate itself was paid for by all of the residents of Woodland Road.  The residents have no objection to this subdivision and not here to oppose the subdivision, but questioned the lack of a traffic impact statement since they don’t think the professionals involved in this review of the area grasp the significant concerns of traffic.  There was a significant amount of traffic before gate went up, and questioned why a traffic study wasn’t done.

By opening it to thru traffic, allowing significant traffic on a cart way where there is only 13’ of pavement is not safe.  He reminded the Planning Board of the prior decisions of this board, closing off Konner which was supposed to go thru.  This roadway ended up as a cul de sac.   and only access for Cheryl, Orchard, you have to come in Woodland, and think there is an understatement of what traffic comes thru there.  He indicated he knows there was some kind of a traffic study done since he saw the line across roadway and wants to see the results.  He was told someone may have done this but it may have not had anything to do with this application.  Mrs. White said she will try and see if there were any traffic studies done in area by another developer. 

Mr. Greenburg continued with his statement that this connection doesn’t serve public good.  The residents received comments from fire officials at that time and signed off on the gate because it was a gate that could easily opened in emergency, since it isn’t locked gate.  Is there an alternative without impacting applicant’s plan?  Mr. Borstein’s plan can go forward with the use of some kind of gate for access for plowing, for emergency services and for school buses.  Even if this can’t exist, and if board is opposed to this, some sort of traffic control at Orchard and Woodland that doesn’t impacting this plan and still serve the purposes of having emergency access should be considered.  One fire hydrant is located almost exactly at the point of one location. 

Water run off and other issues will be addressed during testimony, but Mr. Greenburg asked to have the board look at this.

Mr. Omland:  Mr. Greenburg is bringing up issues that are beyond part of this full applications presentation.  Mr. Greenburg just reviewed an application on something similar to this, and it is an initiative that is something important.

Traffic study may be something that should be looked at.  We did the same type of thing at the K&K.  The application for the subdivision is not difficult in view of revised plans, and the issue of the road being connected, this is the case the applicant’s attorney must present. 

Mr. Greenburg noted the difference is there is prior history.  His concern has to do more with the speeding of the vehicles, and this must be contained.  Mr. Omland indicated that this board is struggling with master plan study, circulation studies, and many other areas in land use.  Discussion ensued on reduction of pavement and traffic calming functions. 

William Van Syckle:  lived in this area since l953 and reviewed documents on this subdivision and think items need to be clarified.  Since 53’ road was a dirt road, DeLuca built there house there in early 50’s, basically emergency issues over many years were limited and road was never used for emergency access except for one night.  While the road was open and MUA paved it for sewers, there would be races to see who would get to Orchard drive first, and it was an issue.  There used to have cars coming at a large amount of speed.  Paving roadway less makes sense, but you have to understand that there are a lot of people in this town that doesn’t adhere to traffic rules and the residents have concerns for our residents and children.  Mr. Bornstein received the ROW from Hendricks’s estate and ended up using part of his property for this development, but noted he thinks it is a quality of life issue and does not want to see the tragedy on this roadway, and would like the board understand that every resident in this section other than houses to be developed are willing to close this road and take the risk because of safety issue of access. 

Traffic is coming more southbound from the DeLuca end and had more problems in this location, as well as issues with littering in area. 

Mr. Lipari discussed polling the board on whether or not a traffic study should be conducted? Stan Omland:  this type of traffic study is not scientific and it is more heart than trip generation.  This has to be someone’s review of the neighborhood and then make a guess which will be very subjective and how many cars will be subjective.   It is worthy if someone wants to make a record but will not be subjective.

Gary Lewis:  if it were something that would provide definitive value, it doesn’t matter how much additional traffic may exist, noting the issue of thru streets is something that one is sensitive to, but can’t visualize something that will be open to further scrutiny and thinks there may be other alternatives to explore.  Board polled on whether or not there should be a traffic impact review:

Mr. Tobias:  thinks it is a useless venture

Mr. Canning:  sees no need to give expense to applicant

Mr. Visco:  agrees with other board members statements

Mr. Hines:  agrees with other board members statements

Ms. Nielson:  agrees with professionals:  open the gate and see what the traffic looks like and see if the traffic patterns change then this is only way data would be valid. 

Mr. Maggio:  if you open a road, who benefits using this short cut; doesn’t see the need for a study. 

Finding:  no study recommended.

Ms. Nielson:  this would be only way to determine an issue:  open gate

Mr. Omland:  you can put counters at other end of Orchard which is imperial; only taking traffic and distributing it between two ends of Orchard/Woodland is immeasurable and intangible.  It is unscientific.  It is not defendable.  Objectors may want to do it for their case suggesting what is required.  

Mr. Lipari:  if we are going to do traffic calming, narrowing of the road, would the road be at the dimensions, would it stay the way it is width wide in order to accommodate two-way traffic study. 

Mr. Omland:  there are variety is pavement necking reducing to minimal width to encourage but not so narrow to impose safety, and is 15’ on off-tract portion of Woodland and is beyond this applicant’s responsibility and would not be required to improve this 15’.  If we improve Woodland, which road is not on Mr. Barile’s capital improvement budget, it would be one method of traffic calming. 

Ms. Nielson:  is there any merit to posting for one way only.  Mr. Omland:  You can post it outbound which would be a benefit.  What about speed bumps?  Mr. Omland indicated these are called speed rumbles.   The old term is now changed to overall verbiage: speed tables, islands, a whole host which reduce speeds of traffic.  Options:  go one way is traffic calming, note the gate poses maintenance and he feels this is more difficult.  You can also leave road private and leave fence.  You can try to put in another cul de sac or you can terminate at Horseneck.  Now pavement width is at 26’ which is under RSIS recognizing roadway is 15’ or less.  Under traffic calming you can lessen from 26’ to 22’. 

Russ Lipari:  read the fire department report dated Aril 6, 2009 into record noting it is in best interest to have easy access to both sides of Woodland, quick response, and did not recommend it to be closed in past or now.  If it was cul de sacs, recommend two installed. 

Both professionals recommend that this road be put thru, and Mr. Lipari stressed that this be done, as well as water and sewer and Township Engineer.

Mr. Schepis:  read the 2/93 master plan – as a general rule the development of cul de sac streets should be discouraged, uneconomical, etc. noting master plan calls for a thru street.

Mr. Tobias:  why do you want to do this?  Will this allow new residents to go out Woodland?  Mr. Bornstein:  when he purchased it didn’t never consider it as anything but a thru street.    

After a general discussion ensued, it was suggested that the applicant work with the neighbor’s spokesman and see if some solutions could be achieved.  The Planning Board would carry this application to September 10, 2009.   .

Gary Lewis:  in order to avoid interested members of public, and avoid pitfall of lawsuit, neighborhood should be aware to present any expect testimony regardless of what the board does.  Michael Carroll:  if there is a case that is going to be an objection, the objections must be made at the end of the case. 

Nino Collins:  who is representing his interests?  He did not receive notice and Mr. Schepis indicated beyond the 200’ but would present additional notice which the Planning Board requested accordingly.   Mr. Schepis will provide expanded notice. 

Motion made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded by:  John Visco

Carried to September 10th

Time to act extended to end of September by Mr. Schepis.

Roll call:  Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Tobias, Larry Hines, John Visco, Art Maggio, Victor Canning    

NEW BUSINESS

PMN/C08-19 COMO, Donna - B: 41, L: 1.2, 1.3 & 1.4– 47 Jacksonville Rd., 49 Jacksonville Rd. & 2 Como Ct. – lot line change w/variances – Notice Acceptable & Carried from 6/25/09 agenda                                                                                                        ACT BY: 7/24/09

Mrs. White summarized that this is a title issue and that a lot adjustment was required in conjunction with same.

James Gregory, Esq. – indicated that the lot line adjustment is to rectify an encroachment where Mrs. Como’s house is encroaching about 2-3’ on an angle.  The addition was built in l985 but existing as far back as the middle 60’s.  He reviewed the issue noting that the surveyor is present to respond to the home being placed entirely back on the homeowner’s property.  Both parties came up with this solution which would place her home entirely on her own property.  This was part of the settlement in litigation, and this is a settlement of the case.

Sworn

Mary Como, applicant

Bill Manning, Surveyor

Ms. Como discussed discussion of an enclosed porch and application was made for said permit.  Around 2004, lot behind changed title and at that time survey performed found that the enclosed porch encroach 2-3’ on neighbor’s property.  Eventually this came to an agreement that the lot line would be adjusted to have this house completely on this lot. 

Mr. Manning:  licensed surveyor – credentials accepted

Plan displayed reflected areas in yellow which will be given to the lots of Como and the blue would be given back to Troy Realty to make this property whole with the four acres required by code.  If this line is accepted by board, this will allow property to include Ms. Como’s house.  It will straighten out lots, and that this lot is a better configuration than existing condition.

Mr. Omland:  this applicant represents an appropriate map, and this is a case where the objective is to clear title.  There are no new variances requested other than compliance with his memo.  Mr. Burgis indicated his report also indicates swap and in these types of situations, suggest it acceptable.

Motion made by:  Gary Lewis – approved subject to compliance with agency findings, professional reports received, variances requested and normal resolution findings and conditions of approval

Second:  Victor Canning

Roll call: Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Tobias, Larry Hines, John Visco, Art Maggio, Victor Canning   

PSPP/FC95-06-09-03 MILAN – 13 Hook Mountain Rd. – B: 175, L: 4 – amended site plan with variances –Notice Acceptable & carried to 8/13/09                      ACT BY: 10/1/09

Rescheduled to August 13, 2009 agenda

Larry Hines

John Visco

PMN/C09-05 FORTE – 28 & 30 Abbott Rd. – B: 39.07, L: 86.02 & 86.03 – Minor Subdivision with variances – lot line change  - Notice Acceptable                        ACT BY: 10/27/09

Present:

Steve Schepis, Esq.

Frank Matarazzo, PE

Note:  record will reflect the name of Linda White.  This is not the secretary who serves the Planning Board. 

Mrs. White summarized prior subdivision on this lot, deed restriction of no further subdivision, and concerns on lack of the sidewalk, curbing, and water line work originally approved under host application. 

Mr. Schepis:  exhibit A1 plan entitled Minor Subdivision – sheet 2 of 2 of submitted drawings dated April 22, 2009 revised to June 12, 2009. 

Existing confines of Forte property reviewed as outlined in red.  Proposal is to extend rear line of Forte’s line, which land would go from White to Forte.  Property is in R27A.  Minimum lot is 27,166 sq. ft.  Existing lot area of White is 61,308 sq. ft. more than double zone requirements.  Mrs. White proposes 11,747 sq. ft. to be given to Forte lot.  The two properties would be 38,000 and remainder of White lot would be 49,571.  They would both meet zoning ordinance.

Lots would not be in violation of variances.  There is a pre-existing variance for White lot, minimum lot depth.  The ordinance requires 27,000 in ROW, which is only 25,438 sq. ft. impervious coverage: 13,275 sq. ft. which is in variance since code only allows 9,430 sq. ft.   Allowable coverage would be 8,257 sq. ft. Gravel is included in impervious coverage. 

Pre-existing variance for impervious is increased by subdivision.   Mr. Burgis indicated his report identifies the variances required, noting from a design perspective, no problem with requested lot line adjustment. 

Mr. Omland:  His June 25th memo relates to activity to the yard in close proximity to conservation easement.  We may want to add more in a conservation district.  Lot 86.04 is a conforming lot, but 86.03 which have an abundance of land and can come back with another minor subdivision.  It could be considered into a flag lot.  Fearful that further creeping of subdivision and make some indication that we require a deed restriction on steep slopes, a conservation easement and markers delineating same, with the understanding that this land is barred from any further subdivision.

Under prior subdivision, it was a condition of ‘no further subdivision’ for creation of a new lot as intent of board.  Mr. Schepis indicated that he does not feel that this was the purpose of board since they a re not creating any other new lots, and would agree to a stipulation of no further subdivision.

Conservation restriction and need should be waived.  Lawn maintained as lawn and no further encroachment into the slopes.  We don’t seek it around steep slopes and if it is lawn now, has no problem.  No conservation areas extended onto this additional area.

Mr. Forte sworn.

He indicated there are a few rocks in the rear, but they are decorative (a rock retaining wall).  Mr. Omland indicated that there is a map that shows land to be transferred, and not sure it is all lawn. Mr. Forte indicated area being acquired is totally lawn with steep lawns. Mr. Omland:  less concerned at this time withdrawing his strength of decision. 

As to the outstanding improvements not completed from original subdivision, which is not part of this lot line subdivision, Mrs. White wanted the Planning Board to be aware that we must create sunset dates, and that she would like support in calling in bond to have the remaining improvements completed.

Discussion ensued.  This resolution, if approved, wouldn’t be available for a few months so applicant and attorney indicated that they would help foster resolution of this open issue.

Approve subject to incorporation of the record. The Planning Board did recommend that the bond be called in if work is completed. 

Motion made to approve lot line adjustment by:  Gary Lewis

Second:  Deb Nielson

Subject to compliance with all agency findings, professional reports rendered except for those items specifically waived during testimony, granting of variances, normal applicable provisions of subdivision approvals.

Roll call:  Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Tobias, Larry Hines, John Visco, Art Maggio, Victor Canning   

CESARE STEFANELLI – Soil Movement Hearing - BL 59.01, L: 8.05 & 8.08 – (Montville Acres) – River Road

Rescheduled to August 13, 2009 agenda

CONCEPTS

Meeting unanimously adjourned in a Motion made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded by: Art Maggio 

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

With explanation

With explanation

With explanation

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 6-25-09

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