MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
Minutes of July 23, 2009
No New Business to be
Conducted Past l0: 00PM
Maggio - present Mr.
Karkowsky - absent
Sandham - absent Ms.
Nielson - present
Lipari – present - Acting Chair Mr.
Lewis – present
Hines - present Mr. Canning – present
Visco – present Mr.
Speciale (alt#1) - absent
Mr. Tobias (alt#2) – present
Joe Burgis, Planner
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.
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
Board of Ed/Fire
Commissioners on River Road
courtesy review of proposed renovation of 86 River Road
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:
Ruitenberg, Esq. – Schwartz Simon Edelstein & Zitomer& Greg Somjen,
Architect– Parette Somjen Architects presented presentation
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
signs – no signs proposed at present, but the Board may have a sign in future
are no handicap signs – they will install these now
to buffering rooftop mechanicals – they intend to install a metal corrugated
screen as part of the master plan.
paint: they are painting and minimal
repairs to the façade, but in master plan future they do intend to stucco
lot improvements – none proposed at this time, but will look at this in future
site lighting – none proposed at this time, but will look at upgrades in future
landscaping and plantings – nothing proposed
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
Nielson indicated she will vote at the Township Committee level, and will
abstain on this vote
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
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.
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
Lewis: the truss roof won’t happen if it doesn’t happen
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.
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.
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
Lewis asked if the recycling for both trash and recycling. Mr. Ruitenberg agreed.
Joe Burgis also voiced concerns on
lack of lighting
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.
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.
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
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.
Tobias: mansard would be cheaper than
sloped roof, but Mr. Somjen indicated flat roof and different rooflines may not
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.
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.
report would be made to the Board of Education w/copy to the Township
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.
Ruitenberg objected to the recommendation being made to township committee.
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
call: Russ Lipari, Gary Lewis, John
Visco, Larry Hines, Larry Tobias, Vic Canning, Art Maggio – yes
Nielson – abstain
Fire Department No. 1,
Barry – Montville
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.
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
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.
Lewis asked for clarification that at that time the $96,000 quote was for the
entire roof, not just section. Mr.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
PMN08-16 VAN SYCKEL – 14
& 16 Woodland Rd
– B: 140, L: 9 & 4- Lot line change
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)
made by: Gary Lewis
Seconded: Larry Hines
Karkowsky, Victor Canning , Deb
Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari,
Larry Hines, Lawrence Tobias
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,
made by: Art Maggio; Seconded: Larry Hines, Roll call: Unanimous
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,
made by: Larry Hines
-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
and Vic Canning
ACT BY: 8/31/09
Rescheduled to 9/24/09
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
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.
Exhibit A1 – photo array –
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.
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.
White indicated at the prior meeting residents represented they approached
governing body for permission and received same to erect the gate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
run off and other issues will be addressed during testimony, but Mr. Greenburg asked
to have the board look at this.
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.
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
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.
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
is coming more southbound from the DeLuca end and had more problems in this
location, as well as issues with littering in area.
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.
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:
Tobias: thinks it is a useless venture
Canning: sees no need to give expense to
Visco: agrees with other board members
Hines: agrees with other board members
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
Maggio: if you open a road, who benefits
using this short cut; doesn’t see the need for a study.
Finding: no study recommended.
Nielson: this would be only way to
determine an issue: open gate
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.
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
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.
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’.
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
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.
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.
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.
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. .
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.
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
made by: Larry Hines
by: John Visco
to September 10th
to act extended to end of September by Mr. Schepis.
call: Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Tobias, Larry
Hines, John Visco, Art Maggio, Victor Canning
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
White summarized that this is a title issue and that a lot adjustment was
required in conjunction with same.
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.
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.
Manning: licensed surveyor – credentials
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.
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.
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
call: Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson, Gary
Lewis, Lawrence Tobias, Larry Hines, John Visco, Art Maggio, Victor
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
to August 13, 2009 agenda
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
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.
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.
Schepis: exhibit A1 plan entitled Minor
Subdivision – sheet 2 of 2 of submitted drawings dated April 22, 2009 revised
to June 12, 2009.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
subject to incorporation of the record. The Planning Board did recommend that
the bond be called in if work is completed.
made to approve lot line adjustment by:
Second: Deb Nielson
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.
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
unanimously adjourned in a Motion made by:
by: Art Maggio