|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville
Municipal Building
Minutes of August 13,
2009
No New Business to be
Conducted Past l0: 00PM
ROLL CALL
Mr. Maggio - absent Mr. Karkowsky – present
Mr. Sandham - present Ms. Nielson - present
Mr. Lipari - absent Mr. Lewis - present
Mr. Hines - absent Mr. Canning - present
Mr. Visco – present Mr.
Speciale (alt#1) - present
Mr. Tobias (alt#2) – entrance noted
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Ms. Nielson updated Planning Board on the coordination of
the lease of 86 River Road
with Board of Ed/Fire Dept. noting that the building will be renovated entirely
with a truss roof and parking lot lighting in accordance with township
standards. Details are still being
negotiated.
PLANNING BUSINESS
Discussion of HPRC Inventory Listing w/HPRC
Present: Kathy
Fisher, Chair present
Ms. Fisher asked about the time frame for updating the master
plan inventory so the HPRC can gel with this timetable?
Mr. Daughtry, liaison of HPRC, spoke to the past 1 ½ years noting
there was some disconnect with historic sites and the proper process, which has
led to frustration on HPRC’s part. The
HPRC is advisory to Planning Board.
Anticipated some of this discussion would be about background and record
keeping issues which were uncovered but that the overall goal is to get a
document from Planning Board to Township Committee that addresses and resolves
some of these issues.
Mrs. White summarized Mr. Oostdyk’s discussion on the
ordinance, listing and master plan.
Ladis Karkowsky: the
Planning Board is always open to all activities of the HPRC and where we have conflicts,
it makes it harder to perform jobs at hand.
Joe Burgis: Have had
several meetings with subcommittee of master plan, and anticipate 6 to 9 months
from tonight for public hearings.
Kathy Fisher: there
are sections that must be in the Master Plan under the HPRC. There is additional work needed since
1987. Mr. Burgis indicated that the PDF
document from HPRC should be forwarded to him.
(Note: Mr. Tobias
entered)
Ms. Fisher indicated that they looked at other towns where
there was a good master plan. Discussion
ensued on what the ordinance should contain.
Originally taken the current HPRC list, and double checked them. HPRC can be done in 6 to 9 months. HPRC is only a part of the master plan. This project for Planning Board is a huge
undertaking, and it will be at least another 8-10 months.
Mr. Karkowsky noted we will invite the HPRC to the master
plan subcommittee. Ms. Fisher indicated
what they also need to add is criteria to the sites for designation.
Mr. Karkowsky asked that these documents be sent to Mr.
Burgis as well as Land Use. Mr. Burgis
will revisit this issue.
Ms. Nielson indicated that she understands Ms. Fisher met
with Mr. Oostdyk, and is working out the list issues, but is requesting that all
records be given to the township for retention, and that all of these HPRC
records should be given to the Township Land Use Offices. Mrs. Fisher indicated she would give a copy,
and if more is needed, will submit same.
It was requested that all documents be submitted to the township.
Mr. Karkowsky concluded with the fact that once we see Highlands, we will be able to see timetables that are
imposed on us, and if there are any other questions to feel free to call him or
Mrs. White.
Reports from Board Liaisons (carried – no reports given):
Board of Adjustment – Larry Hines
Board of Health – Lawrence
Tobias
Environmental Commission – Vic Canning
Water & Sewer – Arthur Maggio
Historic Preservation Commission – John Visco
DRC – Deb Nielson
Site Plan/Subdivision Committee – Russ
Lipari Chair
Regional Drainage Study Committee – Russ
Lipari, Ladis Karkowsky
Traffic & Traffic Subcommittee – Russ
Lipari
Economic Development Committee – Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale
Open Space Committee – Ladis
Karkowsky, Russ Lipari,
Deb Nielson
Master Plan/COAH 3rd Round – Ladis
Karkowsky, Russ Lipari,
Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis & John Visco (alt) – Update
Cross Acceptance Committee – Ladis
Karkowsky, Russ Lipari
Highlands Legislation
Review Committee – Gary Lewis
Appointment to Fire Department Districts – Russ Lipari Towaco; Tony Speciale for Pine Brook, Art Maggio for Montville
HIGHLANDS PRESENTATION – REVIEW OF MODULE 5 – HIGHLAND’S ELMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN - PUBLIC
DISCUSSION
Presentation by Joe Burgis, Planner
Highland’s council is
required to prepare 7 different reports to help to decide if we want to opt
into Highland’s
program. These modules result in data
gathering process but don’t lead to any definitive conclusion. Mr. Burgis is presently preparing a matrix on
pros and cons as to opting into process.
The Planning Board must hold two public meetings of Goals and objectives
before 9/1/09 and prior to October 1, public meeting on Housing plan. These hearings are to be public meetings not
public hearings, and are to get public input and are meant to inform public
what we are doing.
Module 3 as of yesterday COAH and the Highlands
came to a new agreement that allowed those municipalities who will by in prior
to December 8th, extending it to June of next year. They added another six months. Reason for this is recognition of charging
new housing needs and these numbers just now are being published. We received our numbers about a week
ago. Some haven’t received them, so
makes it difficult to prepare a housing element by December in just receiving
info.
Module 5 highlights:
goals and objectives requiring incorporation into master plan. There are 88 townships in Highlands,
with 77 of them going thru plan conformance process; 11 already said they
wanted nothing to do with this process.
Regional master plan covers 1300 sq. miles, with half in preservation,
the other half in planning area. .
Regional master plan covers 1300 sq. miles, with half in preservation, the
other half in planning area (38 acres is in preservation and 72% in planning
area). We are obligated to impose restricted environmental regulations
for that entire portion in the preservation area. It is our option as to whether we want to
impose these controls in the planning area of Montville.
This is first step in entire process.
This plan reflects all goals and objectives and the plan element on
housing, conservation, utilities, circulation, community facilities, EDC, HPRC,
etc. Each of the elements has specific goals and objectives. In many respects, a lot of our goals in
master plan address it, but there is a more restrict environmental focus than
our master plan.
4-5 areas of importance:
option of cluster development regulatory control thru the regional
master plan for all residential zones.
In quite a number of our residential, we have cluster zoning provisions,
which isn’t a significant change here, but will need to fix the one we
currently have if we want to buy in
Density: this isn’t publicized
but if you buy in, use variance for density, there is added lying of processing
and in addition to zoning board reviewing density variances, the variances may
also need to b e reviewed by Highlands’s
council.
The issue of housing plan:
for Montville, COAH has given us 316
housing units, and we are working on Highland’s number,
and calculated that our number under Highlands
would be 107 units, and are still refining this, noting our construction
department’s numbers vs. what the state’s DCA numbers indicated. Mr. Burgis elaborated
on vast difference when translating this to our calculations, noting it is a
reduction of 35 COAH units.
Ms. Nielson asked for clarification. Mr. Burgis indicated this is current
projection of growth share, and wanted confirmation on surplus from prior
years. Ms. Nielson asked that the numbers
projected shouldn’t be released until the formula is finalized and these
numbers with a comparison chart be clearly reflected, along with matrix for
opting in/opting out. We have to make a
decision no later than December 8th.
Mr. Burgis continued:
If you choose to opt in, you don’t need housing plan for another six
months. If we choose not to opt in, then
the housing plan for Montville
must be submitted. No decisions are made
on this issue, but planner should be prepared to respond to introduction of a
housing element with notice to protect against litigation. A housing plan should be developed in
November so that the document could be prepared in advance.
Mr. Lewis asked: based
on data reviewed, is the COAH number firm, or can you go back to COAH and say
‘look at this data’, isn’t there an option that this higher original number be
adjusted. Mr. Burgis: the highlands’
number is not firm. You are entitled
pursuant to COAH to adjust downwards, and there are set criteria to adjust
numbers down, but if you adjust based on environmental constraints, you can use
the data collected from the Highland’s
process to support intention. The lower
number, noted Mr. Burgis, would be part of plan submitted. Mr. Karkowsky: isn’t it true that some information Highlands
based their criteria on is incorrect?
Mr. Burgis: when you look at
original land map, they did identify areas that were not able to be developed
as developable.
Mr. Sandham: what are
deadlines?
Mr. Burgis: if you
buy into highlands, you have until June 10, 2010 to file housing plan; if you
choose not to participate, you have to file a housing plan with COAH by
December 8, 2009, and he would be receiving an adjustment from that figure given
asking for a discussion with COAH staff.
Mr. Burgis: Noted
that at next Monday’s meeting, he intends to get some answers from the Highland’s at that
time. He noted he has attended four of
these meetings, and the questions from most all in attendance center on the sole
focus of affordable housing issue.
He noted that on the back of the report, there is a map
attached and depending on type of nonresidential use, there is a large laundry
list of uses not allowed in the district, and although sometimes you have permitted
local uses, in the Highlands’ they will be prohibited
(see pages 94-97). Some are surprising,
most significantly area warehousing, gas stations, but in certain limited areas,
these uses won’t be permitted under Highlands.
In each instance, real thrust of this document, is the goals
and objectives with more environmentally conscience with forestry resources,
open waters, critical habitat, lake management, water resource quality and
wellhead protection. There are
categories to which goals and objectives may affect this township.
This process must be made open to the public. Mr. Karkowsky opened to the public, hearing
none, Mr. Sandham asked if election occurs and changes happen at that level, are
these rules subject to legislation or can governor change rules. Mr. Carroll:
these rules are to be adopted thru administrative process, and
legislation can eliminate them, so yes, there is gubernatorial control over
abolishment of rules, and thru appointment, can change philosophy. Concerns Mr. Carroll voiced was that the
legislation changes rules after working hard, and if township opts in and
accepts home rule, and then have another COAH rule is reinstated, there is no
way to bind in the future, so this is something of concern but as pointed out,
policy could move in a different direction.
Mr. Burgis elaborated that affordable housing is constitutional
right. Mr. Carroll: how can how highland’s trump constitutional
laws.
Mr. Lewis: section of
Highland’s plan that talks to net water deficient, this area could be a result
of areas that are outside of Montville’s border, yet they are asking Montville
in this town to limit their develop in these areas regardless of what happens
outside this area. Mr. Omland: accurate about disappropriate function of
boundary lines.
No public comments
Closed to public in a Motion made by: John Visco
Seconded by: Gary
Lewis
Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Burgis asked the secretary to forwards the summary
minutes of this hearing to the Highlands. Secretary concurred.
RESOLUTIONS
None
WAIVERS
PMISC09-26 Ryan
Michaels Academy
– 9 Church Ln.
– B: 123, L: 12 – 3,949 s.f. school for children with autism - 8am – 6pm M-F –
6 employees – no signage requested at this time
Waiver was approved unanimously subject to compliance with
agency reports, use letter stipulations, and no signage in a Motion made
by: John Visco; seconded by Jim
Sandham.
PMISC09-27 Edelman Law Office – 150 River Rd. Unit B4A (800
s.f.) & B4B (1,200 s.f.) – B: 123, L: 21 – law office use – 8am-8pm –
Sun-Sat – 5 employees – signage in compliance with approved theme
Waiver was approved unanimously subject to compliance with
agency reports, use letter stipulations, and sign theme approved in a Motion
made by: Deb Nielson, seconded by John Visco.
PMISC09-29 Acupuncture 4 Your Health – 150 River Rd. Unit C5-4B – B: 123, L: 21
– 1,093 s.f. Acupuncture - 1 employee – 10am-6pm Mon-Fri – signage in
compliance with approved theme
Waiver was approved unanimously subject to compliance with
agency reports, use letter stipulations, and sign theme approved in a Motion
made by: Tony Speciale, Seconded by John
Visco
PMISC09-30 Phoenix
Marketing – 54 Indian Ln East
– B: 30, L: 15.1 – 3,100 s.f. mezzanine for storage and office for client
audits – no additional employees – no change in operation – no additional
signag3
Waiver was approved unanimously subject to compliance with
agency reports, use letter stipulations, and no signage in a Motion made
by: John Visco, seconded by Gary Lewis
CORRESPONDENCE
None
MINUTES
Minutes of 7/23/09 – Deb Nielson,
Victor Canning, Larry Tobias, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, John Visco, Larry Hines,
Russ Lipari
Subcommittee minutes of 6-25-09
Master Plan minutes of 6-25-09
Subcommittee minutes of 7/14/09
Subcommittee minutes of 7/21/09
Master Plan minutes of 7/23/09
Approved unanimously in a Motion made by: Gary Lewis; seconded by John Visco
INVOICES
Omland
Engineering: $438.75, $303.75
Burgis
Assoc. – Trust for: $93.75, $468.75
Michael
Carroll, Esq. – Litigation for: $310; $503.75
Approved unanimously in a Motion made by: Tony Speciale; seconded by Jim Sandham
LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS
Etemadipour - B: 41, L: 20 – 5 Benefly Rd. - Transition Area – Waiver
Mr. Omland indicated this is a Single lot development – sees
no issues
OLD BUSINESS (51:08 meter start of hearing)
Mr. Carroll swore in board professionals
PMSP/F07-10 – Block: 159, Lot:
6 – K&K Subdivision – originally approved 7/24/08
– Remand hearing on ‘traffic calming’ devices only. No notice required
Michael Sullivan, Esq.
July 24, 2008 the Planning Board adopted a resolution creating 10 new SF
homes with a thru road from Windsor
to Woodmont. Residents filed litigation
and the matter was heard by Judge Bozonnelis June 11th, 2009. The judgment upheld the board’s decision,
remanding it back to this level for traffic control or calming devices if
any. This hearing is back here on this limited
scope as to what the Board is considering as to traffic calming devices.
Exhibit A1 – Resolution marked in
June 11, 2009 – A2 exhibit – Judge Bozonnelis findings
As a result of judge’s decision, submitted is a plan that
reflects two alternatives, as well as a narrative to the other concepts
indicated.
Arthur Elias, PE – credentials accepted – reviewed traffic
calming layout dated July 23, 2009.
Alternate 1 plan
Alternate 2 plan
Third option narrative
Northern side of subdivision discussed.
Alternate one discussed:
looked at putting in a central island and revising curb line to go
around island. The plan was reviewed by
Pine Brook Fire Dept., and in developing this, used the turning movement in
order to assess what type of island and curb is needed. In looking at cart way,
there is not much restricted movement, so introduced speed tables some either
side of the island. Inside center of
island is low maintenance vegetation.
Not proposed to put in concrete.
Maintenance would be that of the municipality. If planted correctly, very little weeds come
thru.
Signage also proposed on either end of island to direct
traffic to go around right; sign at speed table ahead noting advance warnings
for speed table. Center part of island
could be landscaped; sharp curb would have some kind of treatment so that the fire
trucks can ride over.
Alternate two reviewed as to the shape and designs.
Alternate three was just to put two speed tables in roadway
with appropriate signage.
August 5th report of Mr. Omland discussed. RSIS waivers would be required for alternate
one or two. His report indicates he
prefer alternate number 1.
Comments 7 indicates that the township could leave roadway
as conventional 28’ width thru road and should excessive cut thru occurs, the
town could take in a separate engineering estimate to require this improvement
to be bonded, and deferred for a future date should township find there is a
traffic problem in this area.
Mr. Elias indicated this would be a problem since they would
have to put features already and also voiced concerns on where driveways off
the lots would be in this area. The
applicant would be preferred decision not be deferred.
Mr. Karkowsky: is
this where applicant was instructed to look at the speed calming. Mr. Omland:
it was but his understanding would be on site, since off-site would be
ROW taking from other homeowners. Both
designs indicated mountable curb.
Mr. Omland: the plans
developed were in conjunction with his office and consistent with what he would
want to be developed. Since memo was developed,
he spoke with Tony Barile and Tom Mazzaccaro and they preferred the chicane
design since the avoidance of speed tables was better, and this forces you to
slow down due to the shape, and when you add speed table, this adds more
maintenance. Mr. Omland indicated he
looked at the issue, and that speed table does slow down speeding. Mr. Omland not married to either plan, but
the island must be maintenance free, with pavers and tree guide although not as
junipers, but applicant indicated they would consent to whatever the township
requires. Mr. Sullivan: applicant concurred.
4 alternates reviewed by Mr. Omland.
Mr. Lewis: a 14’ cart
way in option 2, concerns noted on snow on curb, what does profile look like,
where depressed portion of this island meet standard height curb, piece of
deliver truck and can’t mount it clearly, do you hit head on the curb.
The area that the fire truck cannot traverse over is a
slightly elevated for two areas.
Mr. Tobias: chicane
design questions: is there is a special
treatment on this. He indicates he advocates
cars going on slowly, that you have to make sure you can ride up sloping curb
and not disrupt any features, and request would be mountable curb for entire
inlands with this design.
Mr. Sandham: He feels
the second option may better protect children and residents in this area.
Ms. Nielson: She
likes option 1, noting it looks like it provides more flexibility to have a
pleasing affect for the resident.
Mr. Sandham: how
effective would be speed tables? Mr.
Omland indicated it is a raised table that you have a curb header that lists
you up and slopes down and feels this is a credible method of speed
control. He also noted that the Chicane alternate
design isn’t common to the area.
Mr. Lewis suggested we go with Alternate No. 1. Mr. Karkowsky asked if the applicant will
provide pavers and trees. Mr. Sullivan
concurred..
Opened to public…
Brian Fleisig, Esq. resident voiced his statements indicated
he also represented some property owners with this case before the Judge. He noted the Judge indicated in some comments
made after his decision that speed tables may be a good option but this is up
to the Planning Board. He encouraged the
Planning Board’s addressing speed control, and concern of what the members in
area had since it is active pedestrian area.
Discussing this, the residents are in favor of alternate no. 1 with
speed table which should be effective noting this issue is a safety and quality
of life issue.
This is a new development area, and when you go into this
area, Windsor Drive has a slope going down, so would also request the Planning
Board in addition of alternate no. 1, ask that the township consider putting
two stop signs… at the end of Windsor Drive and Sylvan Drive, noting he feels a
stop sign would be in order.
Mr. Carroll: this is
an off site matter, and Planning Board could voice their opinion to ask that
there be two stop signs one at end of Sylvan and one at end of Windsor. Both Mrs. Nielson and Mr. Sandham indicated
that these comments will be taken back to administrator and police dept.
Mr. Lewis: wished we
were in a position to include these items in resolution, and unfortunately that
this wasn’t asked of Planning Board from the residents in the beginning.
Mrs. LeBlanc – handed in a 3 page statement on off-site
improvements Planning Board should consider.
She talked about traffic calming devices and safety of children
requesting the Planning Board consider the off site improvement requests drawn
up. Mr. Carroll: if it requires off site, this is not function
of this Planning Board.
Mr. Sandham: noted
these are valid concerns but this is more of a Township Committee
function. This group cannot speak to
this. Township Committee would be
anxious to give this a review.
Driveway locations are shown. Grade is more than 3% but doesn’t require
signage.
Resident 40 Windsor
Drive – Jeff Schenkel – indicated he prefers
Alternate #1 design.
No further public
Motion made to close to public by: Gary Lewis
John Visco closed to public
Roll call: unanimous
Stan Omland noted that the alternate designs will not change
any lot lines. Township officials
indicated low maintenance: paver and trees
Board members polled:
Victor Canning: option 1, Tony
Speciale and Larry Tobias, Option 1, Jim Sandham prefers 2, but will go with
residents request for option 1, and Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, John Visco and
Ladis Karkowsky opted for the oval design shown on Option 1.
Gary Lewis: Are there
sufficient engineering details to submit, tree guard details, and approval
subject to planner and engineer? Ms.
Nielson: Make sure tree is able to
sustain salt and at least 3 ½ in. caliper. These revisions would be subject to
review and approval of the board planner and engineer.
Gary Lewis: Approve
Alternate No. 1 design
Seconded: Jim Sandham
Roll call: unanimous
PSPP/FC95-06-09-03 MILAN – 13 Hook Mountain Rd. – B: 175, L: 4 –
amended site plan with variances –Notice Acceptable & carried w/notice ACT
BY: 10/1/09
John Sullivan, Esq.
Mrs. White summarized subcommittee this morning, noting
concerns with the alteration of the site without an executed lease to allow off
site parking. Three witnesses:
Greg D’Allermo, owner
Mr. Greg D’Allermo sworn – operating since l995.
He explained restaurant operations. The type of restaurant would be a steak house
type feel; plan provides for a reconfigured parking area, and he is proposing
employees to park off site which is located on Old Bloomfield Avenue for 13 parking
spaces at the location for his employees only.
A1 Lease agreement executed:
a 3 year term with a 3 yr. right to renew, and that this would be
terminated on a 90 day notice which is a provision the owner insisted upon.
If the application is approved, and during course of this,
the lease is revoked, the applicant would reduce the occupancy permitted to
bring it into compliance with the lack of the 13 spaces. This number is adequate and would address nighttime
peak hours.
Valet parking would be done by employees only, and the
parking spaces across the street would be for employees parking. Valet parking is every day. There are tenants at the parking across the
street. Applicant was advised that these
tenants had their business hours at 9-5.
A2 – list of tenants located at 28 Old Bloomfield Avenue – marked into
evidence.
Mr. Karkowsky voiced concerns that some of the tenants shown
may operate later than indicated.
A full review of the lease agreement must be made. This is a lease and questions concerns voiced
as to whether or not this proposal for off site parking is in compliance with
our ordinance. The applicant is required
to seek variances for less than parking on site, and must condition site plan
approval on existence of adequate parking:
the lease does have a 90 revocation provision.
Joseph Gates, AICP – licensed architect and appeared before
on this site back in l995. Credentials
accepted. Mr. Gates was sworn.
Sheet A4 basement plan & second floor plan reviewed: at lower level there will be a 16’ vestibule
addition, and other yellow portion remains the same; no change in lighter
areas, addition portion is the darker yellow, with a 2’ sliver which squares
off the upstairs, but the only difference is the creation of the new
entrance. Everything else is the same.
Net page which is light yellow is existing footprint with
the dark area, in middle, the addition created over the existing deck area
(open deck with canopy/open) but has same 2’ strip to line up with existing
building.
Primary entrance will be in rear where it has been for 14
years, with vehicles and customers coming around building and valet will take
the car coming out back lot and is consistent with the l995 site plan.
Kitchen remains same; will be modified as to finishing’s,
the main floor will have renovation to a new bar, moving the bar out of back
left and will have new bathrooms which will be barrier free; coming from grand
entrance, one of the design aspects that the owner wanted was to create an
identity of the entrance, and although customers are addressed thru the rear,
the applicant wanted a view from the street since now the building has no front
door. Vestibule will have open stairway
and also will serve as fire exit and would want to create a nicer visual
aspect. Existing deck at front right but
will be a new roof constructed with a matching gable, and a small portion of
deck on right that will be enlarged.
Fire exits discussed.
Total number of square footage increased: 208 sq. ft. of area within; new deck 12’
X 26’4”. Lower deck
that was original entrance is removed so in essence this deck area was put on
as a trade off.
Steeple will be removed and a new gable on right side over
existing deck area added, and this is the area where canopy will be removed. The new square footage is entry. As part of changes on front: windows will be removed and lower left
vestibule will bump out. Existing steps
and deck which steps up are removed from area and the entire front will be
entirely landscaped and changed. There
will be seasonal seating on upper deck. Steeple
is being removed. This site is not part
of the HPRC listing.
Handicap access with regards to parking spaces
discussed. There is a new plan that
overlaps the board professional comments which require two additional spaces across
from driveway for those to park their own vehicles since there are occasions
that some may have handicap vehicle without a permanent chair. These two spaces would be for someone to
drive to these spaces. There are two
additional spaces at corner. Spaces will
serve primary entrance.
Total capacity is 212 patrons (does not include decking)
table layout is substituting of tables during this time with outside seating
since occupancy could not exceed 212. Prior
approval was 137 patrons. It was noted
the applicant did receive additional land from township which allows for more
expansion, and he is now providing off site valet parking. There are 212 allowed for patron occupancy with
13 employees.
Mr. Omland: is there
any way to enhance this back elevation with a sense of entry and presence other
than a normal door. One of the dominoes
affects is that there is a loss of interior space if designs are changed in
this location, explaining these to the Board.
Signage – Hudson
will be the new name of facility. Sign
is in rear elevation and this is a long row of wall which gives more of a presence. Does sign meet ordinance? Mr. Gates indicated that the plans itself and
the jug handle is small and existing sign is lost in building. There will be variances for sign required. Location of front sign discussed as to
visibility from Rt. 46
Roof top appliances screened in front, and in rear there is
a parapet wall and top of units would peak over top of parapet, but there is no
one who will see these rooftop units. Mr. Omland felt the adjacent houses will see
them, and Mr. Gates indicated he can increase screen wall another two feet.
Applicant requested to submit a written response to the
changes made on the plan and future revisions as it relates to the DCA response
in letter of August 6, 2009 and the revisions to parking plan. The DRC rendered a report, and the applicant
was also requested to send a landscaping plan to Mike Kopas, the DRC’s
landscape review agent so that he can review the plantings to make sure they
will survive along this corridor.
Joseph Glembacki, Planner – present indicated he would
follow up.
Due to time constraints, this application was carried to
9/10/09 with notice preserved. Motion
made by: Tony Speciale, seconded by Jim
Sandham. Roll call: Unanimous
Clarification question:
the plan reflects 88 spaces on site, does not include off site parking
spaces, but due to DCA requirement of additional handicap spaces, the parking
will be 85 spaces. Applicant asked to
get all information to board professionals as soon as possible to avoid delays
in September.
CESARE STEFANELLI – Soil Movement Hearing - BL 59.01, L:
8.05 & 8.08 – (Montville Acres) – River
Road – Notice acceptable – would prefer to carry
application
Due to time constraints, this application was carried with
notice to September 10, 2009
NEW BUSINESS
None
CONCEPTS
None
Meeting adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by: Jim Sandham, seconded by Victor Canning.
Meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. White
Secretary
|
