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:
Mr. Maggio - Absent Mr. Karkowsky Present
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
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
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 from Board
Board of Adjustment
– Larry Hines
Board of Health – Lawrence Tobias
Commission – Vic Canning
Water & Sewer
– Arthur Maggio
Preservation Commission – John Visco
DRC – Deb Nielson
Plan/Subdivision Committee – Russ Lipari
Study Committee – Russ Lipari, Ladis Karkowsky
Traffic Subcommittee – Russ Lipari
Development Committee – Gary Lewis, Tony Speciale
Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson
3rd Round – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis & John
Visco (alt) – Update
Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari
Highlands Legislation Review Committee – Gary Lewis
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
Mr. Carroll swore in board professionals
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
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
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)
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
Minutes of 8/13/09
– Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, John
Visco, Ladis Karkowsky, Jim Sandham, Lawrence Tobias, Tony Speciale & Vic
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
Burgis Assoc – O/E
for: $225; $187.50; $4,812.50 (Masterplan); Trust for: $960, $60
– Trust for: $195, $67.50, $1,113.75 (Bornstein), $337.50
Esq. – Litigation: $310
Approved unanimously in a Motion made by: Mr.
Lipari; seconded by: Mr. Sandham
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
Mr. Matarazzo, PE
and Land Surveyor – sworn
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.
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
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
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
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:
Deb Nielson, Victor Canning, Larry
Tobias, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Tony Special,
John Visco, Larry Hines, Russ Lipari ACT
Present on behalf
of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Frank Matarazzo, PE
Mr. Schepis – Mr.
Matarazzo will be testifying this evening.
Mr. Matarazzo –
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
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
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 -
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
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,
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
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.
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
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.
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
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 –
– 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.
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
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.
Karkowsky: made your case please. If this is the plan, then come back with that
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.
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
(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
Present on behalf
of the applicant: A. Michael Rubin, Esq, Greg D’Allermo, owner (previously
sworn); Joseph Gates, AICP (previously sworn); Joseph Glembacki, Planner
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.
already sworn at last meeting.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
Gary Lewis seconded
Roll call: :
Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson,
Victor Canning, Larry Tobias, Gary Lewis, Jim Sandham,
John Visco, Tony Speciale
Motion to adjourn
made by Larry Hines, seconded by John Visco, and unanimously accepted.
Linda M. White
certify to 7/23/09 missed hearing
Certified to 7/23/09 missed hearing
certify to 7/23/09 missed hearing