Township of Montville

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

Minutes of December 10, 2009

ROLL CALL

Mr. Maggio - present                             Mr. Karkowsky - present          

Mr. Sandham - present                          Ms. Nielson – present                             

Mr. Lipari – present                               Mr. Lewis - present

Mr. Hines - present                               Mr. Canning - present

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

                                                                        Mr. Tobias (alt#2) - absent

Also present:

Michael Carroll, Esq.

Stan Omland, PE

Joseph Burgis, Planner

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

None

PLANNING BUSINESS

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 – Mr. Sandham indicated that they received two grants for open space acquisition totaling two million dollars for two sites Township is interested in.
• Master Plan/COAH 3^rd Round – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis & John Visco (alt)
• Cross Acceptance Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari  
• Highlands Legislation Review Committee – Gary Lewis
• Fire Department Districts – Russ Lipari Towaco; Tony Speciale or Pine Brook,
• Art Maggio for Montville

Mrs. Nielson indicated the Township Committee met in November and adopted the resolution opting into Preservation area, and taking no action on the Planning Region of Highlands.

WAIVERS

PMISC09-39 National Networking & Commerce Solutions, Inc. – 150 River Rd. Unit 3 – B: 123, L: 21 – Office 1,900 s.f. for computer technology services – hours of operation 8:30am-5:30pm Mon-Fri – 3 employees – signage to be in compliance with approved theme (Montville Office Park)

Approved in a Motion made by:  Russ Lipari

Seconded by:  Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous

RESOLUTIONS

PMN/C08-19 Como, Donna - B: 41, L: 1.2, 1.3 & 1.4– 47 Jacksonville Rd., 49 Jacksonville Rd. & 2 Como Ct. – amendment requested

Mrs. White summarized prior subdivision which was a minor lot line adjustment to eliminate an encroachment of the Como porch on the Troy Manufacturing property line.  The subdivision was a result of a litigation settlement.  The resolution imposed a ‘no subdivision prohibition’ for the Troy properties which were objected to by this property owner.  Applicant noticed for relief from this condition of approval, and notice is in order.

 Jim Gregory, Esq. present

Mr. Gregory indicated Troy Properties have four acres, is located in an industrial zone, and borders the residential zone.  The property owners concern is for the future, recognizing that there may be zoning changes.  This prohibition of no further subdivision was not part of the original litigation settlement, and the lot line was just to allow and is industrial zone and borders into residential zone.  Who knows what happens in future, use may be changed, zoning may changed, and this was not the agreement.  If lot line is not approved, this would eliminate deck on house.  If this restriction goes thru, all of this litigation and subdivision was for naught.  Mr. Gregory respectfully requested that this prohibition be removed from resolution. 

Michael Carroll indicated this is typical condition imposed.  There was no discussion on this issue, but this is the normal condition he imposes which is typical to our community. 

Mr. Gregory indicated that the minimum requirement for industrial is five acres and that this is only four acres, but the owner may at some time in the future find that the industrial use no longer is viable, and perhaps look to see the possibility of residential as a further buffering in this area.  He indicated that obviously any board at that time would have the power to act on any request in the future, but with this prohibition as written, it gives no flexibility to the future, especially if it is something the township would like to see happen in the future.

Gary Lewis moved to support a revision to the resolution removing this prohibition of further subdivision Seconded:  Deb Nielson: Roll call:  unanimous

CORRESPONDENCE

None

MINUTES

Minutes of 11-24-09 – Tony Speciale, Gary Lewis, Russ Lipari, John Visco, Ladis Karkowsky & Deb Nielson

Workshop Minutes of 11-24-09 – Russ Lipari, j, Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson

Adopted unanimously in a Motion made by:  Russ Lipari, seconded by Art Maggio 

INVOICES

Uhl – Trust for: $600; Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $101.25, $33.75, $101.25, $77.50, $270, $67.50, $67.50;Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $45

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $405, $405, $675, $135, $127.50, $67.50, $67.50, $258.75, $877.50; Burgis Assoc – Trust for: $750, $718.75, $93.75, $812.50, $500

Adopted unanimously in a Motion made by:  Larry Hines, seconded by Jim Sandham

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

None

OLD BUSINESS

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, 9/10/09 Eligible:  Ladis Kakowsky()Deb Nielson, Victor Canning, Larry Tobias, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Tony Special, Jim Sandham(), John Visco, Larry Hines, Russ Lipari                       ACT BY: 12/10/09

Board professionals sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.

Present:  Steven Schepis, Esq.

Frank Matarazzo, PE

Mr. Schepis indicated the applicant was requested to review the submission of an alternate subdivision study prepared by Fred Klenk submitted to the Planning Board.  At direction of Board secretary, the plan reflecting creation of a loop street from Horseneck Road to Orchard Road recommended by the Board professionals as a one way loop street from Horseneck to Orchard was sent to Traffic safety Office, the Public Works Supervisor and the Fire Department.  None had any objection to this, noting that Mr. Eggers, Pine Brook Fire Chief, wanted a thru street and didn’t care if it was one way or not since fire trucks in an emergency would use quickest way.

Stan Omland, PE noted he studied RSIS standards, the various alternate layouts provides, various traffic calming schemes in an effort to provide for a conventional roadway per Montville Township balancing this against neighborhood concerns.  These impacts are measured against the master plan and engineering standards. 

What was devised after a meeting held with Joe Burgis, Tony Barile, Township Engineer and Tom Mazzaccaro, superintendent of Public works and an on site visual inspection conducted October 2^nd, 2009, recommending that the township accept the full right of way width, that Woodland Road become a one way from inbound of Horseneck to Orchard Place, and that proper signage reflecting this be put up.  The subject portion of the traveled way should be granite block curbing, holding the existing easterly edge of pavement at 22’ width.  This reduced pavement width is sufficient for the proposed one way traffic and would also preserve at least one, significant tree at the northerly end of the project.  He indicated that this would keep the roadway away from the existing homes, and would keep the existing vegetation, accomplishing much of what residents want and doesn’t impair objections of other township offices.  He felt this would be a solution that would balance all of the objectives.

Plans in file are the last design with full width and two way roadway, but the board’s recommendation that we go with one way inbound 22’ width with curbing and all other appurtenances with ROW as described under original approval.

Mr. Burgis indicated he prepared an Oct. 29^th memo that concurs with Mr. Omland’s office, reviewing ROW and paved width, and that these recommendations came out based on site inspections and meetings.

Mr. Omland indicated that the applicant would require an RSIS exception which he would have to obtain since the RSIS standards do not speak to this.  Applicant should b e required to obtain this and it should be clear in the resolution, should board approve.  If board found favorable, the applicant should be burdened with revising plan as well as other engineering aspects from prior reports issued since there are other items that must be addressed.  If the Board wishes, it can be a condition of, should approvals be granted.

Gary Lewis feels that after reviewing this plan, listening to the testimony, that this is a great middle ground vs. to the calming strips and that he would recommend to the township committee the one way sign posting which may require governing body approval, and we should obtain their input and approval on this design. 

Mr. Schepis summarized that this application requires diminious exceptions, for cart way width, for a 22’ cart way width, as well as for the waiver from sidewalk and graded areas off ROW.  It will be curbed and there are no other sidewalks in the area.  Applicant requests waiver of the sidewalk.  As to lighting, Mrs. White indicated that any lighting, if required, must be the decorative street lighting agreed upon by township (ornate acorn style post top luminary with 12’9 ornate fiberglass pole black).  Applicant will agree to additional lighting if required.  This issue is subject to Mr. Omland’s review.

Applicant agreed to the imposition of conservation easement on the existing wetlands, marking in as an exhibit A3, depicting the conservation restriction area.

Mr. Sandham asked about the sidewalk waiver, indicating the proximity to the high school.  Discussion ensued on installation of a sidewalk.  Mr. Schepis indicated there are no sidewalks in this area.  There are sidewalks existing on the northern side of Horseneck Road but not in this residential area. 

Deb Nielson noted there costs associated with installation of a sidewalk, asking Mr. Carroll if these monies that would have been needed for this sidewalk installation can be put into a fund for roadway/municipal sidewalk/improvements in this immediate area.

Mr. Schepis indicated there are no legal requirements for this.  He indicated there is an abandoned subdivision in this area so there are no sidewalks considered.  Russ Lipari indicated that the area below may have subdivision possibility, and we should be consistent in this area and have applicant install sidewalks on the applicant’s side.   

After general discussion as to sidewalks and concerns of areas for the kids to stand, the applicant was requested to put on the corner of Horseneck a sidewalk/bus pad.   

William Greenburg - 23 Woodland Road, owns house where cul de sac exists, and speaks on behalf of other residents and his home.  The children on block wait for bus at the corner of Orchard and Horseneck and stand on the side of road.  He noted he spoke before and their first choice was not open roadway, understanding concerns of fire department.  His concern is direction of the one way going in vs. coming out. 

Mr. Omland indicated once he walked the property approaching Woodland from Horseneck, the sight distance to right of Horseneck was limited requiring shrubs and trees to be removed.  This design he recommended would maintain harmony and less removal of trees, and he felt inbound was the safest route, looking left westerly there is an abundance of sight distance while easterly has little sight triangle. 

Concerns voiced about the corner of Orchard and Horseneck is a problem with cars not stopping at intersection, noting there is a major subdivision above this area.  He asked that there be a Stop Sign at Orchard to make this a safer area.  He felt any traffic calming devices and signage, especially placing of signs is important to the safety of the children in area.  Right now children are playing in street cul de sac, and assume there will be more children on this street, so children playing signs would also be requested by residents, and asked that the township investigate a study for stop signs and traffic calming devices in this area.

Discussion ensued noting that the Planning Board can make a recommendation on this that it would need to be sent to the Police Department.  This should also be referred to the Board of Ed and make them aware.  It was decided that the final layout would be sent to the Board of Ed, with a request that they respond

Residents are not in favor of any additional lighting.  There is one light on Woodland and one on Horseneck.  Mr. Omland to review the lighting to make sure there is sufficient lighting.  Mr. Greenburg indicated there is drainage problems in this area, and that the residents intend to discuss these issues with the Township Committee.

Fred Klenk, Professional PE and PP – present on behalf of residents to give another perspective for board.

He noted he is familiar with this area, is familiar with High Ridge to the east, and was the architect for two additions for homes on Woodland Road.  In the course of these projects, he saw the traffic at this time, and he is here this evening to suggest to this board that they go back to the thought of the cul de sac, since many of the discussions about sight distances, coming in/out will go away if you leave the road as a cul de sac design.

Sight line is an issue.  Horseneck Road is a major road, is at a bend in the road, and there are two street entrances labeled with the same street so there is confusion.  If you have a GPS, it doesn’t tell you if it is one way/two way.  If they come out of these homes, they go all around the neighborhood or they go a wrong way on a one way street.  If you go back to cul de sac, all issues disappear.  He submitted a proposal to the board, sketch only, suggesting a cul de sac or one way traffic. 

He continued that this is a major subdivision:  applicant should put forth a traffic expert report from a licensed PE for testimony as to which design is better.  Ladis Karkowsky:  board professionals offered their recommendations. 

With regard to roadway, there is more pavement involved if you go with the one way street design.  As Mr. Greenburg pointed out, there are drainage problems in this area with water that flows across Woodland Road and this road has to be intersected to catch this water.  Right now it all terminates into 16” pipe that goes to wetlands areas.  There is an impact on your wetlands areas.  There should be zero runoff.

Mr. Omland noted that the applicant complies with RSIS standards, complies with all state wastewater, and does not discharge into wetlands.    

Discussion ensued on review of drainage plans which Mr. Klenk was asked to review.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated these plans are on file.  Mr. Omland indicated that comments should be directed to the road.  The discussion of drainage was already discussed at prior meeting and meets all of state and/or township rules.  There is no requirement of a DEP approval.

Mr. Klenk continued that the plans indicate a 50’ wide conservation easement that terminates at end of proposal and a utility easement that goes up  to cul de sac.  Why does the 50’ conservation easement end at the property line?  If you look at wetlands line to the south and the transition area which bisects existing lot, it seems strange to have a 50’ wide easement that ends at property line.

Stan indicated it ends at end of property line, and the conservation easement which is offered can only placed on applicant’s property so it has to stop at property line.  Conservation easement can only be placed on applicant’s property.  Mr. Klenk:  should analysis be made to see if it should be extended into property.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated that the info on drainage has been resolved.  Mr. Omland indicated he would meet with Mr. Klenk and explain DEP regs and how far this board can go on imposing further regulations beyond DEP.

Mr.  Klenk indicated that he is presenting the issue of concerns for the residents and doesn’t feel that these concerns have been properly addressed.  Mr. Schepis asked for his credentials to be clarified:  Mr. Klenk noted he is a professional engineer, architect and planner.  Mr. Lewis indicated that the Planning Board and their professionals did investigate in great depth the exhibit prepared by Mr. Klenk dated 10/9/09.  Mr. Omland indicated both he and Mr. Burgis addressed their thoughts on Klenk plan.

Mr. Klenk continued:  Members of board, when putting in 50’ ROW and reducing of pavement, with one way, which board favors, board should be aware properties immediate to east to this proposed road are two homes that exist, one of which had a Board of Adjustment approval granted based on fact it is not a public road, and this was prime reason for granting variance.  Municipal board recognized fact that if it were a public road would be a detriment.  These two people living here will now have corner properties with two front yard setbacks.  These limits potential for any proposed additional should t hey choose to come before the town.  Position of two homes are close and face this proposed roadway so their quality of life is affected since this roadway is in their backyard, and any enhancement of addition, there is a harder case to prove.

Mr. Lewis:  one of the residents just secured variance approval.  Mr. Klenk indicated that if you read minutes, it was based on fact that part of their reasons for granting was that it wasn’t a public road, and is a good possibility that this wouldn’t be granted.  There are detriments to making this roadway.  Mrs. White indicated that the Board of Adjustment hears these types of cases regularly since they look at these cases as a possible thru road.

Gary Lewis:  exhibit was reviewed by Board professionals and there is a review memo issued which incorporated review of this plan.  Mr. Burgis and Mr. Omland did address comments on his plan.

Board should be aware, there is a detriment to properties to east of road.  There are two people that are now on corner lots.  There will be two front yard setbacks and this limits potential for any proposed addition should they choose to come before the town.  One of the variance was approved on house. 

Mrs. White summarized prior Board of Adjustment requirements for lots that were adjacent to private Row’s since the township approvals.

Mr. Klenk voiced concerns of maintenance of sewer lines and on the selection of which one way design/circulation favored.   

Russ Lipari noted we have always followed our professional opinions, have expended a great deal of time talking about the subdivision, and we were especially cognizant of the fire department’s memo of September 9^th as to ingress/egress.  Various other departments want this done also, mentioning township engineer and water and sewer department.

Mr. Klenk presented testimony on the merits of circulation, noting if it is a one way in, there is a sight line issue with someone coming into existing Woodland Road that narrows down, and coming down in this direction, that driver is suddenly confronted with having to negotiate roadway.  Mr. Lipari reminded Mr. Klenk in earlier discussions, we would recommend proper signage be installed to protect interest of the neighborhood.   We are addressing these concerns.  Mr. Omland asked what affect does narrowing have on tract to  a vehicle who is proceeding and is then confronted with a 22’ narrowing of roadway.  Mr. Klenk indicated vehicles will slow down.  Mr. Omland summarized various alternatives indicating the Board started with a two way street, and compromised with this solution, and will make sure there is proper lighting and curbing.  Mr. Klenk noted that there is rock in this area close to the surface and this may have an impact on construction and how it proceeds. 

Board members discussed the need to make sure a sidewalk should go in encouraging the high school youths to walk down the street, as well as having a bus pad for them to have an area to gather and cross Horseneck Road.  This sidewalk and pad should be on applicant’s side.

Motion made to close to public made by Russ Lipari, seconded by Larry Hines

Applicant asked for recess to discuss sidewalk with client.  Board requires sidewalk, no need for recess.  Applicant continued: Mr. Schepis indicated he would deal with the wetland conservation area, that sidewalks will be installed as well as a bus pad area, that they require a waiver from RSIS and that this is a classic argument for a waiver and safety to the residents who would benefit from making parcel a one way circulation plan.  Applicant agrees for no further subdivision prohibition of 17.01 except for lot line adjustments, not for new lots; agreed to maintain trees and wetlands within conservation easements; all state, county, federal and agency findings part of this subdivision must be adhered to. 

Mr. Omland indicated that the Board would look to ask for conservation beyond wetland area to ask for full 15’ which is excessive and becomes encumbered.  Applicant agreed to a deed restriction of 17.01, except for a lot line adjustment with adjacent lots not to create a new building lot; agrees to maintaining trees and wetlands, agree to conservation over wetlands shown on exhibit A3. 

Mr. Omland:  in addition to this, the board does ask for conservation easements beyond wetland areas.  To ask for a full 50’ is excessive since this area would then take deck and lawn area into play.  The board has a sketch of this, noting the applicant is barred within 25’ of transition area, but he can average this wetland buffer if he wanted to put a pool there, and can extend out of this area but must maintain net area of wet area.  Discussion ensued: would want the inner 25’ enclosed in conservation easement with the understanding that the lawn can be used as it is with lawn been maintained.  Mr. Schepis indicated there is a municipal storm drain on lot 6, and if there are drainage problems for new/existing homes, this is an issue as well as a swale on westerly property line which they may want to tie into.  Applicant advised that these types of exemptions can be written into conservation easement.  This area would be to preclude development only.

 Mr. Schepis indicated there is a transition area on right where there is a municipal utility and it must be exempt.  The wooded area on left side is desirous, vs. lawn area where sewer runs.  If you come 25’ off this area, that is all utility easement.  Mr. Omland:  some of it is.  What the applicant is giving is what DEP regulates and protects nothing further.  DEP has an additional 50’ that is regulated; all we want is ½ of that in conservation except for those areas that applicant discussed this evening.   

What protection do we lose by not having conservation in wetland area? The only thing lost is ability to regulate as party of conservation easement since it harder for DEP to come out and you would have jurisdiction vs DEP jurisdiction, noted Mr. Omland.

Board members were ok with just wetland area delineated.  Main purpose is buffer for wetlands, protect surrounding homes, trees.  This is not the case here.  We have a buffer already, and don’t think it is necessary here.

Mr. Omland:  his latest memo issued was on roadway, there are a lot of outstanding items from prior memos that have to be carried forward in any resolution, and the revised plans must incorporate all comments. . 

Any resolution must have specific wording on resolution and conservation easement, clearly indicating what is allowed in these areas.

Mr. Schepis:  can have document reviewed and approved by township attorney prior to any resolution is adopted.

Mrs. White asked about construction vehicles, construction path, stockpiling of materials, nuisance issues that detract from neighborhood, sales trailer, porter potties, and make sure our resolution refers to these specifics so that there are time limitations imposed and discussed so the municipal Developers Agreements addresses all of these items. 

Mr. Lewis:  it would also be subject to the Township Committee accepting the Planning Board recommendation that this roadway be a one way street.  If not, they would be required to come back to Planning Board.  No alternate discussed this night. 

As to applicant intent on having sales trailer, Mr. Bornstein indicated that he may have a pod for tools.  Board stressed that we want controls on these types of construction items, and there must be a limited time period to get all of these items off the property.  Get timeframes built into resolution.  Discussion ensued.  A pod for storage may be used.  Mr. Omland indicated that the applicant should submit a plan that clearly reflects where the pod would be located.  In addition the DA will set forth timetables for removal.  This will be shown on revisions to plan.  The DA will respond to this.  It is done in a DA, so that it is part of the resolution.  The DA will have specific agreements in place.   

Motion made to grant preliminary and final subdivision approval, granting RSIS waiver for roadway cart, and waiver for disturbance of slopes along roadway, as well as compliance with testimony of record, all professional reports, revisions of plan to incorporate findings of professionals and agency findings, testimony of record, one way circulation plan as well as a recommendation to the Township Committee/Police Dept/Township Clerk for signing and one way street circulation; sidewalk, curbing, and street lighting, if needed, per JCP&L decorative lighting to be determined by board engineer, Developer’s agreement incorporating specific concerns as to timetables on construction equipment/pods/trailers, porter potty, signage, construction materials stockpiling and/or construction access, no signage approved, if  blasting, compliance with blasting policy, specific wording on conservation easement insuring details of what can/can’t be done in conservation easement on wetlands, Disturbance of slopes for roadway – waiver from RSIS for cart way width 28 required, 22 approved

Motion made by:  Russ Lipari

Seconded:  Art Maggio 

Roll call:  Victor Canning, Tony Speciale, Ladis Karkowsky, Jim Sandham, Larry Hines, Art Maggio, Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Russ Lipari

Findings of fact will be indicated in resolution so that the facts on the one way and calming devices so that the Township Committee would be aware of other signs that would be considered in resolution.  Mechanism as to getting the information to the governing body would be with correspondence to the Township Clerk by Secretary of Planning Board when resolution is adopted.

5 Minute recess…

PMN08-16 – VAN SYCKLE - Lot Line Adjustment – B: 140 L: 9/4 – 14/16      Woodland Avenue – Requested and received extension of time for recording minor subdivision deeds to:  2/20/10

Approved in a Motion made by:  Russ Lipari:

Seconded by: Larry Hines

Roll call:  unanimous

NEW BUSINESS

PMN09-12 SAIA, SALATORE - 107 Changebridge Rd. – B: 123, L: 2 – minor subdivision – Notice Acceptable                                                ACT BY: 3/6/10

Present:  Sal Saia

               Frank Matarazzo, PE

Background stated by Mr. Said.  Mr. Saia indicated he is requesting approval of one new lot.  He indicated he has an LOI on the property and requested an extension of the LOI which is being discussed with DEP.  The applicant indicated what is done as to wetlands is depicted on the subdivision plans.

Note:  Victor Canning stepped down since he owns a townhouse in Montville Chase within 200’ and left meeting.

Mr. Karkowsky confirmed this is the same property that the Planning Board reviewed which at that time was for development of a three lot subdivision.  Since Mr. Saia was representing himself, Mr. Saia and Mr. Matarazzo were sworn in.

Sworn in by Mike Carroll, Esq.

Mr. Lipari indicated since this property is HPRC listed, he was hoping to see someone in the audience from the HPRC to hear this testimony and that of our professionals.  He noted this Planning Board does a great job with community and was aware of concerns that the HPRC members do not receive enough information on this type of application.  Although Mrs. White will forward the summary of testimony taken, he thought that this hearing would be important for the HPRC members to listen and participate in. 

Mr. Saia noted he received a letter from HPRC tonight right before this meeting and will attend the HPRC meeting Monday night summarizing he will do everything to maintain this structure in historical manner.

Plan marked in as Al, colorized site plan, grading plan sheet four of seven and originally dated 9/9/09 revised ll/24/09.  Property located on westerly side of Church Lane. 

Applicant proceeded with description of property, land use and zoning discussed.  Property is oversized.  The existing structure on property is located on the northerly side.  Currently the house has a non-conforming side yard setback.  It is about 1.6 off line.  There is an existing freestanding shed building in middle of property, which is also non-conforming due to location (1.1’ off property line).  Property has a pond in the center of the lot.  There are wetlands around it and a portion of it is also on the northern westerly portion.  There is a driveway leading to existing house, gravel, access to Changebridge road.  Site has municipal sewer/water.  As to frontage of Changebridge Road, this is where the historic stone wall runs along the front. 

As Mr. Saia noted, and LOI exists, but is due to expire, so the applicant is asking for the extension.  As part of this extension, there was a reclassification done on portions of the wetlands.  Originally this wetland in northwest was called wetlands, but are now changing it to a swale, and a riparian buffer is now associated with the pond.  Based on these comments, applicant had to revise average buffering plan for proposed dwelling in order to have building area for new lot.  This relates to 5,000 sq. lot areas, and moved the house slightly to the south, as well as reworked wetlands buffer areas and will also require a GP10 wetlands permit for driveway and for buffering plan.

Proposal is for two conforming lots.  Mr. Matarazzo reviewed the zoning and criteria. Side yard variances continue to exist.  New lot southerly half is larger than zone requires.  This lot exceeds zoning requirements. 

Propose dedication of ROW on Changebridge Road 33’ off center line, not proposing ROW for remaining house lot and this is due to the existing stone wall located on front property  line.  This stone wall is part of the historic structure of house and is located on private property.  No other variances beyond those mentioned.

December 3^rd memo of Mr. Omland’s reviewed:

Omland’s report discussed.  No. 1 – applicant doesn’t have a footprint for proposed lot.  Mr. Matarazzo indicated that it would be a 2100 sq. ft. footprint with garage:  there are no plans for proposed house, just here for creation of lot and for subdivision. 

Mr. Omland:  we want to see representative house that fits on lot.  Size is 55x45 or 2100 sq. ft. including garage.  This is a small house based on what was seen in past. 

Last half of that question is compatible architecture to HPRC Doremus house.  Mr. Matarazzo indicated Mr. Said would sell the lot to anyone who would want to build a house.  Mr. Saia indicated that it may be his son building house on lot, indicating he would like to see compatible structure but concerned that it would be very restrictive.  The Board advised the applicant that they require HPRC, reminding Mr. Saia of the Wright house and that this new home was built under their powers.  This is what the Planning Board needs to see, and this issue cannot be relieved by the Board.  If there is a conflict with HRPC, you come back to Planning Board for resolution of the issues at that time. 

Mr. Lipari asked if the applicant had contact with HPRC, and noted some concerns with the requirements of the HPRC being able to be complied with.  Mr. Saia indicated he would comply with HPRC.

Mr. Matarazzo continued…

The current LOI submitted, and he has applied for extension and that the wetlands shown on plan are based on the recommendation received from DEP.  If the wetland permitting comes back differently, the change DEP has come up with is change of designation of wetlands and swales.  Mr. Omland asked:  In seeking an updated LOI, did applicant receive wetland permitting plan.   Mr. Matarazzo indicated he will provide a copy of the LOI and LOI map when received.  He indicated the buffer by the pond would go thru the new property line.  It is encumbrances on both lots.  There will be buffers regulated by two different property owners. 

Mr. Omland asked the applicant:  If permit doesn’t come thru, would this approval be void?  Mr. Matarazzo indicated the building envelope would be affected and would be made smaller.  Mr. Omland acknowledged that this board can’t say you have to get your buffer area first but cautions that if the permit is granted, this plan may be different than what board has before them.

Board members voiced concerns on review of plan without an HPRC meeting and without conferring with HPRC committee.  Mr. Saia indicated their development plan were forwarded to planner and engineer and also went to HPRC.

Mr. Matarazzo indicated that the application was sent to the Rockaway River Water Cabinet.

Discussion continued on the dedication and the Morris County letter on lack of dedication.  Applicant indicated the application was made to Morris County with dedication as shown on the plans.  Under prior application, the applicant did receive correspondence from the County with respect of dedication on remaining house lot and they were ok without dedication due to the issue with existing stone wall on ROW and had no objection to leaving this preserved on private property and not on public ROW.  At this time, no response received on this filing but was sent to County Planning Board.

Open waters/wetlands and transition area discussed.  Mr. Omland indicated these areas should be in conservation area.  Conservation area would run along the wetland lines.   Mr. Omland asked:  Where there is a state mandated riparian buffer, are you saying you won’t put in conservation area?  Mr. Matarazzo indicated the state allows modification of transition area, and question is why a town should bar reduction of buffer.  This is not case with riparian buffer.  Applicant will agree along riparian zone and wetlands zone in conservation.  Mr. Matarazzo indicated that this map of the many buffers and wetlands is not depicted graphically and will put in a highlighted version. 

Applicant will require relief from the 5,000 sq. ft. envelope.  Mr. Burgis indicated that variance relief is not required at this time, but if DEP doesn’t approve this, then would need to come back to board. 

Mr. Matarazzo indicated that location of drywells for proposed house will fall on applicant to provide at plat plan for new construction.

There will be no removal of trees.

The map was completed based on field topo. 

Applicant will comply with Morris County Planning Board, Soils Conservation, and HPRC and any other agency reports.

Mr. Lewis voiced concerns on voting on this now noting he feels the community has an obligation to evaluate the subdivision in context of HPRC and all despite all assurances of compliance with HPRC, no problems with acceptance of testimony, but feels that we need to see other aspects for the Board to opine on this.  Think we should have a response back from the HPRC, and also noted he wished they were here to participate in this review.  He wants to see their review report in. 

The applicant was advised to submit a Conservation easement exhibit to the board.

As to preliminary review of architecture of new home, no new house proposed at this time. 

Reference made to Pg. 3 of the Burgis report which highlights functions and once we receive HPRC’s review, if there is a grey area, then the Planning Board will resolve. 

Applicant also instructed that when he comes back to Planning Board, that he should also make sure that any driveway for a proposed lot is shown to insure that a car can turn around on the lot without backing out onto Changebridge Road.

Discussion ensued on intent of HPRC preliminary report, how to control development of the architect of proposed house when not planned at this time, and if at the end of the day, the requirement is to have architectural plans drawn now vs. at time of a building permit, the statute isn’t well defined on this, and best to resolve this up front.  Mr. Carroll summarized concerns and felt that at the end of the day for the HRPC wants conformity, that this would be a ‘subject’ to condition.  Mr. Saia was directed to obtain HPRC report, and this application was carried with notice preserved and time to act to the February 11, 2010 Planning Board agenda.  Mr. Saia indicated that he wanted confirmation on why this new lot would be subject to HPRC project.  Powers summarized.  Ms. White indicated that the applicant was advised that HPRC report would be needed and we were looking at other issues. 

Motion made by:  by:  Jim Sandham

Seconded by:  Larry Hines

Roll call:  Deb Nielson, Russ Lipari, Gary Lewis, Ladis Karkowsky, Jim Sandham, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Art Maggio   

Board moved to closed to discuss professional invoicing and fees.  Majority of board had no objection to minor increase in rates. 

Meeting unanimously adjourned in a Motion made by:  Russ Lipari Seconded by Gary Lewis

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White