Planning Board 9-10-09 Minutes Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 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 - Present                   Mr. Lewis - Present

Mr. Hines - Present                   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 indicated that the Township will be observing 9/11 ceremonies at the VFW on Friday as well as the Friday night opening football game there will be a 9/11 ceremony at 6:30pm there is a request that red white and blue attire be worn.

NOTE: Mr. Tobias enters

The September 24, 2009 meeting time is changed 7pm to discuss Highlands’s issues.  Proper notice for a meeting change will be made.

PLANNING BUSINESS (no reports given)

Reports from Board Liaisons:

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

Mr. Speciale indicated that the Pine Brook Fire Department would like the bell from Milan since it was from the first church in that area.

Mr. Carroll swore in board professionals

RESOLUTIONS

PMN/C09-05 FORTE – 28 & 30 Abbott Rd. – B: 39.07, L: 86.02 & 86.03 – Minor Subdivision with variances – lot line change – approved 7/23/09 - Roll call: Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Tobias, Larry Hines, John Visco, Art         Maggio, Victor Canning   

Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Hines; Second by: Mr. Visco; Roll call: Yes - Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Tobias, Larry Hines, John Visco, Victor Canning

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 – approved 7/23/09 - Roll call: Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Tobias, Larry Hines, John Visco, Art Maggio, Victor Canning   

Motion to adopt made by: Ms. Neilson; Second by: Mr. Canning; Roll call: Yes - Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Tobias, Larry Hines, John Visco, Victor Canning

WAIVERS

PMISC09-28 Suppa’s Restaurant – 16 Rt. 46 W – B: 162, L: 7 – use of existing banquet room for occasional “comedy night” in conjunction with existing restaurant use – no other change in operation

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq. Vincent Suppa Applicant

Mr. Schepis - Previous approvals on this site were for the restaurant and the banquet room.  The applicant is requesting a slight change in use of the banquet room for comedy night which will be 4 nights per month in the banquet room, and during those times this room would be used specifically for this use. 

Mr. Suppa – sworn

Have a contract with a company to supply the comedians and we supply the food.  The banquet room will not otherwise be in use on the evenings of the comedy club.  I would like to have it 4 evenings a month.  Have not done it more than 2 or 3 thus far.   Mr. Schepis - Mr. Omland’s report indicates issue with valet parking service. Mr. Suppa – I have not had any problem with valet parking plan and do not see additional need for valet parking or additional parking.  There is the same amount of people per party as there would be for a banquet.  No additional signage proposed for comedy club. 

Ms. Nielson – Has the parking been monitored and who is presently in the building.  Mr. Suppa – The gym and ourselves at night,  at one point the gym on top was open and the one down the bottom was in use but the gym up top is no longer in use. 

Mr. Lewis – Comedy club would be on what days?  Mr. Suppa – It would be on Friday and Saturday nights.  Mr Lewis – How will there be promotion of those nights if there is no signage?  Mr. Suppa – The comedians have their own websites, it sells itself.   Mr. Lipari – The restaurant is open during these nights?  Mr Suppa – Yes.  Mr. Sandham – What time does comedy night start?  Mr. Suppa – 7pm-8:30pm food and show thereafter.  Mr. Canning – I want to make sure there are not sexually explicit routines by the comedians.  Mr. Carroll – It would be difficult to sensor that since is not under zoning. 

Ms. Neilson – Requested advise from counsel on whether a resolution should be done on this waiver. Mr. Carroll – I would not have a problem doing a resolution  but if this is a permitted use then the ordinance ought to define what is and what is not permissible.  He indicated he can address resolution that limits the undertaking of the application but would be up to the Township Committee to draw up an ordinance that would handle the concerns.  Ms. Nielsen – This operation does not have liquor license but other sites in town do so we may want to look at this for the future.  Mr. Carroll – The Board could have the applicant submit a listing of exactly what he is looking to do with this use to put within a resolution.   Mr. Schepis – The banquet room is segregated from the restaurant, the site is in a B-3 zone not near residences, there is no liquor license on site, so would seem that there would be less people congregating due to those reasons.  A resolution is fine; the applicant would just like to use the banquet room at a comedy club 4 times a month.  There is an outside comedy provider, comedy only no dancing.  

Mr. Speciale – Where are tickets purchased?  Mr. Suppa – They are purchased on line, I have a few on hand but mostly purchased on line.   Mr. Hines- Are these patrons allowed to bring in their own wine?  Mr. Suppa – Yes.  Mr. Suppa – We have 1 show on Friday and 2 on Saturday; the ones on Saturday start at 6pm and we are still out by 11pm; there would be 4 total nights per month.  Ms. Neilson – If there are 2 shows in one night the parking would not be handled with one show leaving and one starting.  Mr. Suppa – There is a ½ hour break between shows.  Mr. Lipari – Is there an age restriction?  Mr. Suppa – No.  Mr. Lipari - Would an age limit of 18 be acceptable?  Mr. Suppa – Yes.

Mr. Carroll – I believe this application should be considered a minor site plan.

Open to public – none - closed 

Ms. Nielsen - If there is a fee/escrow differential between the waiver and minor site plan the applicant must submit.

Motion to approve this application as a minor site plan and a resolution will be drafted and additional fees/escrows will be required made by:  Mr. Speciale; Second by: Mr. Sandham; Roll call: Yes- Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Tobias, Larry Hines, John Visco, Victor Canning, Jim Sandham, Tony Speciale, Ladis Karkowsky

PMISC09-31 Canvas 4 Life – 30 Chapin Rd. Unit 1210 – B: 183, L: 7.1 – 4,210 s.f. (office) /1,118 s.f. (warehouse) digital photos to make wall art use – 3 employees – 9am-6pm Mon-Fri – signage to be in compliance with approved theme (First Industrial)

Waiver was approved unanimously subject to compliance with agency reports, use letter stipulations, and signage in compliance with approved theme Motion made by: Mr. Lewis, seconded by:  Mr. Visco

CORRESPONDENCE

NONE

MINUTES

Minutes of 8/13/09 – Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, John Visco, Ladis Karkowsky, Jim Sandham, Lawrence Tobias, Tony Speciale & Vic Canning

Minutes of Subcommittee meeting of 8/13/09 – Deb Nielson & John Visco

Minutes of Master Plan Subcommittee meeting of 8/19/09 – Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, John Visco

Approved unanimously in a Motion made by:  Mr. Canning; Seconded by: MS. Nielson

INVOICES

Burgis Assoc – O/E for: $225; $187.50; $4,812.50 (Masterplan); Trust for: $960, $60

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $195, $67.50, $1,113.75 (Bornstein), $337.50

Michael Carroll, Esq. – Litigation: $310

Approved unanimously in a Motion made by: Mr. Lipari; seconded by: Mr. Sandham

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

NONE

OLD BUSINESS

CESARE STEFANELLI – Soil Movement Hearing - BL 59.01, L: 8.05 & 8.08 – (Montville Acres) – River Road – Notice acceptable & carried from 8/13/09 – first hearing

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Frank Matarazzo, PE

Mr. Schepis – Mr. Stefanelli acquired a lot from Montville Acres, re-graded his property and went onto the property that was to be dedicated to the Township, and uncovered the Jurassic rock on the to be dedicated property.  We are looking for approval for a soil movement permit to remove the soil and fill to restore the municipal lot to its original condition.  We gave net with the neighbors and their concerns were to see re-vegetation and stabilization as soon as possible.  We submitted 2 plans for your consideration. 

Mr. Matarazzo, PE and Land Surveyor – sworn

Reviewed soil removal plan for the Board. 

          Exhibit A1 – colorized version of soil removal plan sheet 1 of 3

Mr. Matarazzo – Reviewed soil stabilization plan dated 8/22/09 previously submitted to the board. The applicant has engaged a landscape architect that has submitted a plan.   There are some large stones and concrete sticking out of the soil that will be removed.  There has been some settling of soil over the year which can be re-graded and flattened. There is a stone wall the applicant constructed at the easterly side of the property; the top layer of the wall is to be removed to meet the height restriction of the wall. 

Mr. Lewis – Do you have approval from the township to move soil on their property?  Mr. Schepis – The property is currently owned by the developer and has not been deeded to the Township as of yet.  There is no alteration to the detention basin.  It is about 8,000 s.f. of area on an 8 acre piece of property.  It seems that the neighbors would prefer the site be stabilized.  It would take about a year to remove.  Mr. Omland – The open space lot is still in the developers hand, does Montville Acres still maintain the basin?  Mr. Schepis- I am not aware.  Mr Omland – It has not been delivered to the Township yet and when it is, it has to be according to the approved plan.  They can come back to amend but we do not have to approve same.  The Township expects to take over the basin as it is on the original approved plan and there is currently fill within the basin.  If not approved, then this applicant would have to put the property back to the original manner.  Mr. Lipari – Are the neighbors there now, the same neighbors that were there before the fill was put in?  Mr. Schepis – I am not aware. 

Mr. Sandham – We now have an alternative that the Township Committee is not aware of, though they sent it to the Planning Board initially, they are not aware of this alternative.  Mr. Carroll – The jurisdiction rests with this board for any movement of soil whether or not it should remain where it was put.  

Mr. Karkowsky asked that the property line and soil movement that has occurred be highlighted on the soil stabilization plan.  Mr. Matarazzo complied and marked the plan in as A2.  Ms. Nielson – Wanted to know if there was any contamination?  Mr. Schepis – We submitted soil testing results and it didn’t turn out to be contaminated. Report was submitted to Mr. Omland’s office.  Mr. Canning – Were permits received from DEP?  Mr. Omland – Not required.  Mr. Omland – My July report indicates a requirement of an environmental expert to submit a report on the soils.  Mr. Schepis – We didn’t think it would be anything other than a movement application until 2 weeks ago but will get that report for the Board.  Mr. Karkowsky – Would like additional testing done.  There is no certification that it came from any particular site.  Mr. Lewis – Want to know what is there before discussing the soil remaining any further.  This is not a minor encroachment it is about ½ acre.  Mr. Omland – My July memo has many comments we have not received answers to yet.  Though lab results have been submitted, we are not sure how much of the fill was tested, need those answers if they wish to leave any of the fill on site. 

Open to public

Nick Mastro – 8 Gregory Dr.

We were in favor of grading and landscaping but was under the impression that soil testing was done.  Soil testing must be addressed first.  The basin has not been maintained by the current owner.  Concerned with the type of removal, preference would be to maintain trees and foliage currently there.  The building of the road makes no sense to us; the soil removal can be done with the current conditions. 

David Terkoff – 37 Kanouse Rd

He is concerned with not knowing if the soil is contaminated or not after it being there for a year.  Step one is to determine if soil is ok.  He would be in favor of A2 to stabilize the soil instead of removal, after the determination of the soil is made.  He would like this situation fixed in a timely manner.

Roy Chayka – 38 River Rd.

I live at the entrance to that road where before this there was no one behind me.  I have endured trucks, blasting and dust.  The property back there has never been maintained.  Parents drop off kids on my property and the kids have paintball fights back there.  The property should be closed in.  

Mr. Schepis – We didn’t address Mr. Omland’s comments and would like the opportunity to address his comments; an expert was already pre paid to do the examination of the soil would like about a month to address.

Nick Mandorlo -6 Gregory Dr.

There was contamination found on the property before it was constructed including mercury.   The property was supposed to be left for open space because of the Jurassic Rock, schools from other states used to come by the bus loads and 2 houses had to be built on the lots.  The rock was never supposed to be touched.  How did it get changed without the public being noticed?  Ms. Nielson – It was the previous Township Committee in 2000.   Mr. Mandorlo – The basin is a mosquito pit can’t the Township pull in the bond to maintain this basin?  Ms. Neilson – I will look into it tomorrow.    

No further public

Motion made to close to public by:  Gary Lewis

John Visco closed to public

Roll call:  unanimous

Mr. Omland – Much of what the residents are discussing is about the original developer not this applicant.  Bonding will not be released until the basin is in the Township’s control.  The basin does not function in its design factor.  We need to go back to the Developer’s Agreement to determine the timeline required for dedication.  Mr. Schepis – An environmental expert has been retained and paid, ran into problems with getting excavator to go on slope, we will need about a month to get testing done and give a written opinion.  Mr. Omland – Suggest the Board hire consultant on behalf of the board to determine if the soil is safe or unsafe, if unsafe then all must be removed.  The applicant is advised and the Township will let the applicant know who that expert will be so they can coordinate with their expert.  Also need to get time tables from the applicant on what they are going to do and when they are going to do it. 

Mr. Karkowsky – Agreed that the Board gets their own expert to work together with applicant’s expert to make sure the results meet DEP standards.  Expert to be hired on behalf of the Board to work with the applicant’s expert to determine location, frequency and test results are in accordance with DEP standards. 

Ms. Nielsen - Can a temporary crop be installed to stabilize the site. Mr. Karkowsky - There is no top soil.  Mr. Omland – Can ask for stabilization right now for temporary solution.  Ms. Nielson – Would like to see the best permanent solution. 

Mr. Sandham – We should find out what happened to the Jurassic Rock and why the bus loads of children can no longer visit this rock.  Mr. Omland- A large portion of the Jurassic Rock that is buried under the houses on private property and 2/3 exposed on township land.  Mr. Matarazzo reviewed the amount of rock that was covered by the soil movement and the location of the other rock in the area which is not exposed.

Due to time constraints the application was carried with notice preserved to the 10/22/09 meeting

Discussion ensued on whether the Board should continue past 10pm with new business since the next hearing is scheduled for planning business only.  The Board agreed to stay and hear the Milan application after the Bornstein hearing.

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 & 7-23-09  Eligible:  Ladis Karkowsky(), Deb Nielson, Victor Canning, Larry Tobias, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Tony Special, Jim Sandham(), John Visco, Larry Hines, Russ Lipari                                ACT BY: 9/30/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Frank Matarazzo, PE

Mr. Schepis – Mr. Matarazzo will be testifying this evening.

Mr. Matarazzo – sworn

Exhibit marked in A2 – colorized grading and utility plan sheet 5 of 10

Mr. Matarazzo – Site consists of 3 lots.  There is a house on each lot. The right of way is improved with 13’ pavement.  There are water lines located in R-27A zone.  Property described noting there is a mild slope on property.  There is a drainage easement on the adjoining property to the north.  Applicant received an LOI from the DEP, area of wetlands indicated on the plans.   There will be no disturbance within the wetland area.  Propose 4 conforming lots.  No deviation from the ordinance as it relates to these lots.   Propose to remove 13’ pavement and construct a 26’ pavement.  Application complies with RSIS standards.  Existing utilities within the easement will remain.  Sewers proposed within an easement located on the westerly side of the project.  Propose a storm sewer within that easement to the rear.  Side entrance garages proposed on each lot.  Each house will have underground detention system.  Have done soil testing. 

Mr. Matarazzo – Have prepared a traffic calming plan dated 8/19/09 previously submitted to the Board.  This plan reflects same lot layout and roadway configuration except for additional of a 6’ wide center island in center of roadway, in order to keep speed of cars to minimum.  The other alternative plan is alternate layout plan dated 8/19/09 which eliminates through street area and wind up with flag lots and non-conformities associated with the lots themselves.  9 variances would be required with this plan. 

Mr. Schepis – We met with the neighbors and went over the plans.  They are here with their professional this evening.

Open to public

Mr. Greenburg – 13 Woodland Road - sworn

Noted he is acting as an individual, not as an attorney.

Fred Klenk, PP, PE for the opposition – sworn – reviewed credentials

He is testifying as professional engineer and planner for Mr. Greenburg.

Mr. Carroll swore in Mr. Klenk

Mr. Greenburg – We were not given the opportunity to give opinion before alternative plan submitted.  We did meet with the applicant last night but we have come up with an alternative that requires less variances and no through street.  There was a recent variance approved on the Paradise’s property that brings their house closer to the right of way.  We will submit an alternative plan that is much more viable.  There was supposed to be a meeting between applicant and homeowners.  Met last night and offered an exchange of ideas, and presented an alternative plan but did not have Mr. Omland’s comments.  He noted he believed that this alternative is more viable.  It is obvious the residents prefer a plan does not provide a thru street.

The Paradise lot which sits on corner of Woodland and Horseneck Road, the Board just granted them a variance to build an addition to their home within 20’ of the lot line, and having their road go thru will be a detriment to their home.  If the road goes thru, they couldn’t build it and would be drastic.  This plan is in conflict with this, and that the alternative to be presented by Mr. Klenk cures several problems.  Traffic calming device was felt to be inadequate, and if there is a thru street, feel there are better calming devices.  Feels alternative plan that will be presented is better.

Mr. Klenk – Overviewed area indicating that Horseneck Road is a major thoroughfare for the area and additional access off this road would be dangerous.  Only purpose would be to service four new homes.  Proposal is to end at Woodland Road with a cul de sac and would serve with this subdivision of four homes a total of ten properties, adding only two more to what currently exists.  There is a paved path that was open for a period of time and it is so narrow, obstructions exist, and from a zoning standpoint, see no significant reason to put in a full roadway along this existing ROW. 

There is an easement existing now, with two adjacent properties that would be severely impacted.  House facing Horseneck road is similar with landscaping facing Horseneck, and the lot in question is lot 1, facing Woodland would also be impacted.  It is a corner lot and zoning requires that there be a 50’ setback from a paved road, and 50’ would make existing homes in both cases totally non-conforming for front yard setbacks.  Roadway would take away enjoyment of their back yard.  They face on a 45 degree angle proposed roadway.

There is a heavy stand of matured landscaping along the property line which is not indicated on the map, but believes it straddles property line.  If a roadway is installed, all of the screening must come out.  To the west, major trees would also have to  be removed since 50’ roadway has to be leveled in cross sections, and introducing with is a new entrance on Horseneck Road, disturbing some major trees and major engineering issues, latest report citing some of the prior report comments that has to do with drainage, wetlands, more blacktop, requires more runoff, and some issues whether DEP will take this additional runoff, as well as a catch basin on bend with a 60” pipe that may not be adequate to take this run off.  The roadway cannot drain onto individual properties. 

Issue before board is aesthetic and engineering issues, and if the Board feels that they should go before they go with a full roadway, then all of the details of engineering and planning should be addressed.   Planner raised serious issues with planning as well as engineering.

Proposal that is going to be presented is based on a study of proposed cul de sac at end of Woodland Road to permit turnaround, services two additional new homes and one of homes exist now, and the other will front on Horseneck.  There is a deficiency on terms of lot width on lot at street, but is the only variance that would be required.  Each lot would be larger and in the real estate industry, desirable to have homes on cul de sac and would only serve 10 people, and is not a major cul de sac.

Does the cul de sac plan deal with the existing problem of people not able to turn around?

Yes, it does, per Mr. Klenk.  It reduces blacktop and the only thing that would be requested under this solution is that you need a front lot width variance, noting in most municipalities, there is an adjustment in a municipality, which we don’t have and would require a variance.

N1 exhibit reflecting marked in by Mr. Carroll.  It is dated 8/15/09 and it is not titled

Gary Lewis:  none of this disturbs wetlands, and preserves the transition area.  Mr. Klenk:  yes.  Can the left property line be adjusted to meet the variance?  All of the lots would conform to square footage, setback requirements to home.

Ladis Karkowsky:  due to time constraints, Mr. Schepis requested to carry this to 10/22/09.  Mr. Schepis asked if the other neighbor could offer input.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated he would open meeting to the public.

Meeting opened to public…

Nino Tollis, 63 Horseneck Road indicated he is being affected by traffic.  Purchased house six years ago, and reviewed the area before purchasing.  He indicated he feels that this traffic would affect his homestead. 

William Van Syckle, Woodland Road – must consider the affect to how many other homes are being affected.  Strongly urge the board to consider what proposals were given this evening.  Traffic will exist whether this plan goes forward or not.  Also think you must  consider developers coming and going, and understand this, but we are residents, live here during and after construction, and see over and over again, see where people move in or live in town for many years, the decisions made by this board affect their lives every day, the well being of their children.  Early on when road was opened, had to appear in court, due to reprimanding a woman who almost hit a child.  He noted he would do it again since these are our kids.  Even though there are a lot of things to consider, these are peo0ple, this is a neighborhood, homes and lives are being affected by this decision, and urge that Planning Board consider any alternative vs. making this a thru way street.  Bottom line:  you are affecting people lives and to consider this and urge that you consider this, realizing that there is a lot of effort by the way of neighborhood and developer so that we can come to an agreeable decision.

71 Horseneck – Fred Paradise – corner house – my house is most affected by this proposal, and just received approval from the Board of Adjustment for an addition. Not sure he will go thru if this proposal is allowed since his addition would be 20’ off the proposed improvement.  Gave some history of the background of this road from when this roadway was used years ago.  Town eventually said “close the road”.  Now we are up to opening the road.  Feels the cul de sac will be a solution here.  He indicated that in the past this ROW was used as a cut thru.  Not opposed to development.  Found the rights to purchase ROW, and now looking to give this roadway over to the town, and wants to keep this roadway closed.

Gary Lewis:  proposed curb line if thru street is constructed, where you shown on current subdivision plan, is it closer to private ROW.  Isn’t the roadway shifting away from the Paradise home?   Existing pavement is 5’ off Mr. Paradise property line, per Mr. Matarrazzo, and new road will be 13’ away from this property and this plan gives you 8’ of additional grass before new curb line.

Diane Van Syckle – Woodland Road – saw these Holly Trees (40 years old) and what will happen.  Mr. Matarazzo:  all of the work exists in ROW and not proposing any disturbing on Horseneck.  Applicant indicated they are working on existing pavement.  Mr. Carroll:  if they are your holly trees, they can’t go on private lands.  Discussion ensued. 

Mr. Karkowsky indicated due to the following application, they need to carry this matter to

Mr. Shchepis:  was at the Board of Adjustment this night, and the variance was for front yard setback for this ROW, and they interpreted that this yard was a front yard, and he had to petition board and received variance for front yard off this ROW.  Mr. Klenk indicated this would be a problem but homeowner asked for relief.

Mr. Omland:   check where holly trees are, and have Mr. Greenburg give us the alternate plan before next meeting.

Mr. Schepis:  when this question was posed months ago, with several alternatives, we were directed to meet with engineering to resolve issues.  This plan is a detailed engineering drawing, and we are not coming back on this plan in the next month, would like this input now.

Mr. Omland:  right as to commentary and there are not a lot of outstanding issues and largely respects our position, but as with K&K, Planning Board went back and forth, and this evening, we must come back and wrestle with the one item. 

Mr. Schepis:  are we going to debate this topic.  We came up with a plan to meet master plan, and don’t know what else to do, but conforms to ordinance and master plan.

Mr. Karkowsky:  made your case please.  If this is the plan, then come back with that plan.

Matter carried to 10/22/09 with time extended and notice carried. 

Meet with the professionals, and Mr. Omland’s office needs to review what was presented this evening, and come up with his recommendations, per Ms. Nielson, and we need this.  Between our professionals and reviewing this and meeting with whomever they need to involve developing a solution and getting this matter closed.  Have input from fire officials all fo which offered their input.  Meet with Mr. Omland and there is nothing else to give the engineer.  Mr. Omland:  not much different than memo of today’s date. He is interested to see objector’s plan to review.   Mr. Greenburg wanted to know if Omland’s issues of June 25th report resolved.  Mr. Omland indicated there is a memo of June 25th with a resubmittal of revisions based on prior report.  Another memo issued on July 20th which further commented on their deficiencies, and there were few, and they are down the path to satisfying ordinance regs.

Mr. Schepis indicated that last time discussion was on ‘traffic calming’ and at that time the only issue to be discussed was traffic calming which was lacking at that time.  Mr. Schepis asked Mr. Greenburg to look at this issue.   Ms. Nielson would like to see more recommendations on traffic calming ideas.

Motion by Gary Lewis to carry to Oct. 22, 2009 with time to extend to Oct. 23, with Notice preserved.  Roll call:  Unanimous

Brief Recess

(Mr. Lipari left meeting)

PSPP/FC95-06-09-03 MILAN – 13 Hook Mountain Rd. – B: 175, L: 4 – amended site plan with variances –Notice Acceptable & carried w/notice – Eligible voters:  Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, Victor Canning, Larry Tobias, Gary Lewis, Jim Sandham, John Visco, Tony Speciale, Russ Lipari certified to missed meeting of 8/13/09 (Art Maggio, Larry Hines, must certify to missed meeting of 8/13/09 to be eligible)                                                                                 ACT BY: 10/1/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: A. Michael Rubin, Esq, Greg D’Allermo, owner (previously sworn); Joseph Gates, AICP (previously sworn); Joseph Glembacki, Planner

Mr. Rubin summarized prior testimony from lasts planning board meeting.  Heard from engineering and representative is present this evening.  Revisions were made to the plan with revision date of Aug. 25, 2009 revision no. 9. 

Witnesses were already sworn at last meeting. 

Record reflects Joseph Glembacki – prepared site plan, and reviewed revisions consisting:  answered comments letters of board professionals and a follow up reports with revisions pertaining to a review letter by planner in comment no. 1 in complying DCA as to handicap parking on site.  There were 3 in west on rear, and converted two handicap, as well as 4 to the north, on kitchen side, these were converted to two with a total decrease of 88 to 85 with 13 spaces off site employee parking, so overall is 98 parking spaces.  In addition, revised the monument sign spelling and per DRC comments, acceptable to landscaping and revised the planting detail.

Mr. Rubin:  did not have a written finding of DCA as to accessible parking plan submitted but since last meeting Joseph Gates (previously sworn) plans were submitted with revisions recommended by DCA was in form of sketch prior to last month’s hearing, and this has been revised oh this site plan and is down at DCA for approval.  There is no reason to think this wouldn’t be approved since it was their sketch, but formal approval not received but expected as part of their review.

Mr. Rubin:  as to site engineer’s testimony, the number of parking spaces as to the handicap access is only changes made.  Both of the professionals worked with DCA and with township consultants as well.  Requesting that any resolution of approval that the writing of DCA be a subject to and a condition of approval and are confident this will be approved.  Mr Gates concurred.

No other site revisions. 

Parking demands, adequacy, prior parking and proposed parking discussed.  Mr. Glembacki indicated that this parking plan addresses the request for 212 patrons, with 137 patrons on prior approval.  Propose 85 o site calculated at 2 1/2 patrons on site and satisfied.  The 137 patrons prior showed 78 spaces which was for 65 parking numbers with 13 valet staked, tacking 10 for employees leaving 68 paces x 2 ½ is 170 spaces allowed.  He had approval for 137 but had capacity of 170.  The capacity was based on 55 spaces, thus the lock on 137 spaces.

Mr. Burgis asked if you are going from 137 to 212, recollection that the valet system is identical and want to make sure that they are not stacking onto street.  Mr. Glembacki indicated that they would be dropping cars in rear of building along left side there is 140’,  take 20’ ft, allows 7 cars to stack, and can stack in another area 10 cars, so you can have 17 cars stacked.  He summarized adequate3 parking exists for stacking in rear of property.  There is 85 on site and 13 off site.  Mr. Glembacki indicated this parking is adequate for future restaurant operations.  Calling attention to satellite spaces, these are for employee only.  No patrons of restaurant would be allowed or even know that it exists.  It is for employee parking only.  In agreement which is part of record, agreements could be terminated or broken, and it is the applicant’s position that in this event, if these 13 spaces, there be an automatic provision to have a lesser number of seats until 13 new spaces be provided.  That would result in reduction of 33 seats if this number of spaces were reduced.  Applicant asked that this be inserted in resolution so that it wouldn’t be reappearance before Planning Board in the event that applicant loses these satellite spaces.  Mr. Glembacki agreed.

Mr. Omland:  is there a consideration to replace timber retaining wall with a modular type block.  Applicant proposes he wants to clean up railroad tie walls.  Applicant indicates that if an engineer inspects it, it would still have integrity.  Ivy is intended to be planted to shield this.

Another question:  drainage on Hook Mountain Road, and original approval in l994, and this inlet system was silted in, and this was to be cleaned out.  Verify that as a condition of approval, this would be cleaned out or is cleaned out.  Mr. Gates:  trench gate as bottom of driveway can be cleaned out.  This driveway is covered and filled in with dirt from driveway.  Discussion ensued. 

Greg D’Ellermo – this area has been paved over and there is no longer a problem with the run off.  He will perform this if needed.  Resolution must indicate that a final reasonable review of the storm drainage/maintenance cleaning is an outstanding item that must be addressed.  Applicant concurred.

Mr. Rubin:  Mr. Gates wanted to comment on this application and wanted to clarify the count:  Site plan was done by this firm in l995 and there was some confusion as to the number of patrons’ vs. number of cars.  There were 137 patrons approved back to 95 and 2001.  There were parking stalls that would be allowed to block other cars in and would only work when driveways were blocked.  Does not change anything on the plan, but wants board familiar with parking.  Prior plan in 201 shows bottom driveway closed off and would allow dotted striped lighting and only by valet, and these cars would be parking 2001 and today. Same exist on this plan.  The idea that the 137 for patrons is what is approved as to permanent parking striped stalls, if all 13 were filled by valet, but if all slots were filled by valet, it would go to 170.  That is why there was some confusion with the dotted lines vs. striped parking.

Open to board.

Gary Lewis:  based on l995 knowledge is it your opinion that the current steeple and bell be removed and preserved off site without much damage to project.  Wouldn’t damage project since this will be removed anyway.  Concerns would be the old lumber and may crack when dismantled in putting it together.  Desire voiced about preserving it for historical purposes and it could be done without an impact to timing or expense.  Mr. Gates:  correct. 

Mr. Greg D’Ellermo:  if one of our volunteer fire department or another civic entity with an interest in historic preservation was interested in salvaging this, just to remove it with some care, he would be glad to work with them.  No problem.

Ms. Nielson:  street lighting between off site and on site.  There is an existing street light, and want professionals to address that there is adequate safety lighting for people walking back and forth, want assurances that it is safe and if not, applicant agree to place additional lighting where needed.  With testimony, where on Old Bloomfield property will parking be, are spaces designated.

Mr. D’Ellermo:  we need to have these spaces identified in the rear.  This exhibit would need to have this done and part of this approval document.  We want this reflected on a plan and as part of this lease.  Mark which spaces on this plan and condition upon any approval.  Marked up map will be presented as part of this site plan.

To Mr. Carroll:  the question comes up, ordinance requires a permanent parking easement, and the practice of this board to enforce this ordinance, this proposal is for a 3-year lease, what mechanism if department is granted, is that the applicant is to keep a file of the current lease or that the township is to be notified if lease not approved.

Mr. Carroll indicated that he has to look at this.  If there was reliance upon this parking as to justification for parking itself, and we have parking off site, best solution is to justify on the grounds it goes to negative criteria vs. a use variance before another Board, you might need site plan on off site parking if you need to justify this.  As part of the negative criteria, there is a representation for employees only, and that we find a method for an enforcement provision, which may not be easy. 

Ms. Nielson continued to voice concerns and wanted records clear for the future.  Gary Lewis:  furnish lease every three year, and if there is an absence of lease, and in event lease goes away, there is a reduction of 33 patrons in the restaurant, and that the parking on site is sufficient to handle the number of spaces with reduction.

Discussion ensued.  Mr. Carroll noted that these types of problems come about with cars backing out, and that would result in notice of violation after review of the lease not being in the file.  It is the applicant’s representation that there is no way a longer lease could be coordinated.  Mr. Rubin concurred – discussion ensued.

Tony Speciale:  On page 3, rear of building, shows clearance in rear as 18’3, page 4 shows this more southbound, 17’3, at corner it shows at 18’ from corner to properly line going thru railroad ties.  Requirement for fire truck is main goal in this question.  The inconsistencies are a result of the revisions due to handicap spaces. 

This is width to the actual parking spaces.  Mr. Speciale noted on back corner on back of building to rail road ties, 13’ to edge of pavement.  Retaining wall is not high in this area.  Is there any way to get more space in this corner for turning?  Can push wall closer to properly line (18’ dimension) and can move it back but wants space.

Can a fire truck go around this building?  A ladder truck won’t.  Discussion ensued on access for fire trucks.  Written report requested minimum of 18’.  Mr. Omland:  you have 18’ from corner of building to property line, impossible to get 18’ due to physical impediment.  If it is fire department’s’ request, applicant should consider widening the railroad wall to optimize this, but not sure you can make the turn.  Can the applicant widen this to the degree possible?  Applicant will agree to move as close to properly line.  This will be added to the resolution.

Open to public - No public comments

John Visco:  approve site plan subject to compliance with all testimony, professional reports and agency reports required, address lease requirements, enforcement requirements, revisions for fire truck department on increasing area, coordination of donation of tower/bell, normal applicable provisions of preliminary & site plan approval, bonding where required, required, DCA approval, inspection of drainage facilities, inspection to determine adequate lighting for safety of valet parking, marked up parking plan as part of record for off-site parking valet spaces, an affidavit of compliance with supporting documentation, all federal, state and local approval documents, Morris County Soil, Morris County Planning Board, taxes paid to date, revisions in accordance with comments of professionals, outside agencies, commissions and boards.  

Gary Lewis seconded

Roll call:  :  Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, Victor Canning, Larry Tobias, Gary Lewis, Jim Sandham, John Visco, Tony Speciale

NEW BUSINESS

NONE

CONCEPTS

NONE

Motion to adjourn made by Larry Hines, seconded by John Visco, and unanimously accepted.

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

With explanation

Must certify to 7/23/09 missed hearing

Certified to 7/23/09 missed hearing

Must certify to 7/23/09 missed hearing

 
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 29 September 2009 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack