MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
Minutes of December 10,
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
Reports from Board
- Board of Adjustment –
- Board of Health – Lawrence Tobias
Commission – Vic Canning
- Water & Sewer –
- 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 3rd
Round – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis & John
- 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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
Steven Schepis, Esq.
Frank Matarazzo, PE
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.
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.
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 2nd, 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.
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.
Burgis indicated he prepared an Oct. 29th 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.
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.
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.
agreed to the imposition of conservation easement on the existing wetlands,
marking in as an exhibit A3, depicting the conservation restriction area.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Klenk, Professional PE and PP – present on behalf of residents
to give another perspective for board.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Omland noted that the applicant complies with RSIS standards, complies with all
state wastewater, and does not discharge into wetlands.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
White summarized prior Board of Adjustment requirements for lots that were
adjacent to private Row’s since the township approvals.
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
9th as to ingress/egress.
Various other departments want this done also, mentioning township
engineer and water and sewer department.
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
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
made to close to public made by Russ Lipari,
seconded by Larry Hines
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
resolution must have specific wording on resolution and conservation easement, clearly
indicating what is allowed in these areas.
Schepis: can have document reviewed and approved
by township attorney prior to any resolution is adopted.
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.
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.
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.
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
made by: Russ
Seconded: Art Maggio
call: Victor Canning, Tony Speciale, Ladis Karkowsky, Jim
Sandham, Larry Hines, Art Maggio, Deb
Nielson, Gary Lewis,
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.
PMN08-16 – VAN SYCKLE - Lot Line Adjustment – B: 140 L: 9/4 – 14/16 Woodland
Requested and received extension of time for recording minor subdivision deeds to: 2/20/10
in a Motion made by: Russ Lipari:
by: Larry Hines
SALATORE - 107
Changebridge Rd. – B: 123, L: 2 – minor
subdivision – Notice Acceptable ACT BY:
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
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 3rd 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
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
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
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
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
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.
unanimously adjourned in a Motion made by:
Russ Lipari Seconded by Gary Lewis
to 7/23/09 missed hearing
to missed hearing of 9/10/09
to 7/23/09 missed hearing