Planning Board minutes 3-11-10 Print E-mail


7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building


No New Business to be Conducted Past l0: 00PM


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

                                      Mr. Tobias (alt#2) – entrance noted









Wastewater Management Plan – Riparian Buffers

Mrs. White summarized the WMP map displayed noting over the past two years, she has worked with Tom Mazzaccaro and Bill Ryden PE and the County on this document.  Our goals were to identify and delineate the ‘future sewer service area’ and to determine future sewerage flows and available treatment capacity.  This WMP covers only the portion of our town within the Highlands Planning Area.  The Preservation area is under the Highlands regulations. 

The Morris County Planning Board has been developing the Wastewater Management Plan (WMP) for the entire county in accordance as required by DEP.  The Township Committee received this presentation Tuesday night, offering their input which was input noted below.  Once we agree with this draft, which we do, the County forwards it to the DEP for review and acceptance; thereafter our township committee adopts a resolution supporting the WMP.  She noted the Township Committee did offer some comments that will be updated asking that the WMP committee advise the County and DEP of the fact that there are certain Open Space preserved properties, while vacant now, may require restroom facilities for active recreation in the future.  The Open Space Coordinator was asked to identify those open space preserved properties that are not in the gold color as potential recreation sites and to locate probably restrooms for each of them. Mr. Sandham elaborated noting that he asked this information be submitted to the Township Committee before March 31st

Mrs. White indicated the map displays reflects the areas left to develop:  the proposed shaded orange area is the proposed service areas.  The plan also provided for a ‘build out’ analysis of remaining developable lands in the general service area or septic management area.  She indicated she did ask Mr Omland to be prepared to discuss some of this since it is more engineering than land use related, such as using nitrate dilution method in build out calculations.  Under this plan, the white area was reviewed and if you used a nitrate dilution method, the plan projects a build out of 170 units.  If you used the zoning criteria, the projection is 256 units.  

She went on to explain that these numbers only apply to the white areas, and that after conferring with Robyn Welch (Burgis Assoc.) who contacted the County, the County did not provide the build out analysis for the entire shaded orange area.  So to make sure the record is clear, the actual build out possibility would be:

First, the white areas, some of which are enclosed in red, is the area that is projected for 170 units (in the Planning Region & number is based on nitrates/septic).  The orange section totally located within our existing sewer service area does have a potential build out of 403 units (our zoning was used to determine this number).  You add the 170 with the 403 and you actually have the possibility of 573 residential units that could be developed in planning area. 

Also, the County also provided calculations for build out for commercial/industrial/mixed uses within the sewer service area (orange area) indicating approximately 1.5 million square feet.  They did not take the ‘white’ areas into consideration for commercial/industrial purposes because it is the septic/nitrate areas.

Our planner also has this data and will be using it for our master plan.

Mrs. White indicated, though, that we will need to adopt the ‘model’ Riparian Buffer Ordinance since this is a requirement for submission with this document, as well as other items which the County already has for DEP.  She asked Mr. Omland to elaborate.

Mr. Omland elaborated on the various bills pending that may affect DEP regulations, one of which is considering extending this particular requirement to 2011.  He confirmed that the Riparian buffer ordinance is an obligation of submission at this time, and it is another forced method of controlling state’s development thru DEP.  He noted had this type of ordinance been in affect, none of the areas would be able to be have sewers.  These riparian buffer are either 50-300’ buffer; simple streams will have 50-300” buffer, cannot modify within these buffers but it is another intrusion into home rule and property rights of township.  From an environmental point, you want riparian buffers.  If the bill becomes law, as to extension, you wouldn’t need to do this ordinance now.  He indicated that most towns are just adopting the model ordinance.

Mr. Carroll elaborated concluding with he feels the bill should be fast tracked.  Deb Nielson noted concerns that there was no reference to this need during discussion by the County at their meeting.  Discussion ensued.  It was noted that the Township Committee can introduce this at their next meeting of the township, refer it back to Planning Board and then schedule adoption.  Mr. Omland indicated we have to adopt this model ordinance or a similar ordinance, but you can’t alter the buffer distances.  Gary Lewis noted concerns that if we didn’t do this, then would those that may need sewer extensions be held hostage.  Mr. Omland indicated that we would no longer have a valid sewer service area that we are not consistent and we do not get sewers service permit reviews at DEP.  Any implementation would be effective upon adoption of this bill.  Mrs. Nielson questioned if it would be possible to draft the Riparian ordinance and in its content note that the ordinance would be effective upon the adoption by DEP just in case there is an extension to 2011.  This should be checked with the Township Attorney and is a good idea.

Resolution Opposing Assembly’ bill A437/Senate bill S82 – Time of Decision Act - Mr. Carroll indicated this is being considered Monday.  The Bill if adopted would allow any application filed to be protected under that zoning.  Presently a township can change zoning during review process. 

Motion made by:  Gary Lewis

Seconded by:  Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous

Reports from Board Liaisons:

a) Board of Adjustment – Mrs. White noted that Quick Chek was carried to May 2010 hearing of Board   

b) Board of Health – Lawrence Tobias   - no comment

c) Environmental Commission – Vic Canning - Arbor Day will be held last Friday in April and they are honoring a teacher (Mr. Matt Meyers) from Lazar for    promoting environmental awareness with his students

d) Water & Sewer – Arthur Maggio - no comment

e) Historic Preservation Commission – John Visco - no comment

f)  DRC – Deb Nielson   - no comment

g) Site Plan/Subdivision Committee – Russ Lipari Chair, Ladis Karkowsky,  Deborah Nielson, & John Visco (alt)

j) Economic Development Committee – Tony Speciale – no comment

 k) Open Space Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deb Nielson & Jim Sandham – discussed under presentation of WMP

l) Master Plan/COAH 3rd Round – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis & John Visco (alt) – no comment

m) Cross Acceptance Committee – Lad is Karkowsky, Russ Lipari   - no comment

n) Highlands Legislation Review Committee – Gary  Lewis – no comment

o)  Appointment to Fire Department Districts – Russ Lipari –Towaco; Tony Speciale for Pine Brook, Art Maggio for Montville – no comments

(Note:  Mr. Tobias entered)


PMISC10-07 Serritella, Leonard – 636 Main Rd. – B: 41, L: 52 – barber shop - 500s.f. – 1 employee – hours of operation Mon-Sat 8am-7pm – signage requested (green/gold as theme exists/same size and to hang down like others existing) – requesting 28” high x 9 “ wide x 10” in depth barber pole (requesting to be lit by 75 watt bulb inside for glow effect, only to be lit at night)

Several board members indicated that the barber pole did exist, and that there are still hooks where it hung.  No objection to allowing this to be put back with this new tenant.  Approved subject to compliance with use letter, sign theme, and new barber pole as stipulated herein as well as compliance with all agency reports. 

Motion made by:  Russ Lipari

John Visco – seconded

Roll call:  Unanimous

PMISC10-10 March of Dimes – 20 Chapin Rd. Unit 1010 – B: 183, L: 7.2 – office (4,164 s.f.)/warehouse (1,336 s.f.) to raise funds and storage – 11 employees – 8am-5pm Mon-Fri – signage to be in compliance with approved theme (First Industrial) Approved subject to compliance with use letter, sign theme, and compliance with all agency reports. 

Motion made by:  Larry Hines; Art Sandham – seconded

Roll call:  Unanimous


CESARE STEFANELLI – Soil Movement Hearing - BL 59.01, L: 8.05 & 8.08 – (Montville Acres) – River Road – Denied 2-11-10 Eligible: Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Tobias, Larry Hines, John Visco,  Jim Sandham, Tony Speciale, Ladis Karkowsky

Motion made by:  to adopt made by:  John Visco

Seconded by:  Gary Lewis

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




Subcommittee minutes of 3-2-10- Gary Lewis, Deb Nielson, John   Visco, Russ Lipari, Ladis Karkowsky

Motion made by:  Russ Lipari

Seconded by:  John Visco

Roll call:  Unanimous


Michael Carroll, Esq. Trust for: $135, $135, $1,181.25, $250, $125, $62.50, $33.75, $1,248.75 (K&K)

Omland Engineering –Trust for: $322.50, $135, $168.75, $67.50, $438.75, $1,181.25 (K&K)

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $207

Burgis Assoc. – Trust for: $472.50, $337.50, $1,706.25 (Ni), $405, $125

Uhl Baron – Trust for: $500

Approved unanimously in a Motion made by:  Russ Lipari

Seconded by:  Gary Lewis




PMN/C09-05 Forte – 28 & 30 Abbott Rd. – B: 39.07, L: 86.02 & 86.03 – request for extension of approvals to 9/11/10

PMSP/F03-23 Passaic Valley Estates – 20 Passaic Valley Rd. – B: 82.05, L: 70 – request for extension of approvals to 10/27/10

Both extension resolutions were adopted unanimously in a motion made by:  Russ Lipari, seconded by:  Art Maggio


PMS09-11 Tiffany’s – 71-75 Bloomfield Ave. – B: 177, L: 2 – Minor Site Plan – Notice Acceptable                     ACT BY: 5/10/10

Mrs. White summarized past activities of the owner and the violations they were noted for since no Planning Board and/or building permit was received: removal of fence with replacement of a stockade fence, installation of a concrete paver patio for and removal of the grass, a poured outdoor barbecue concrete patio outside of the approved outside seasonal dining area, and a new roof replaced on the seasonable outdoor patio dining area as well as installation of a heating and cooling unit on rooftop.  The applicant’s attorney noticed for increased in impervious coverage as well as existing non conformities.

The Board professionals were sworn in by Mr. Carroll.

Michael Rubin, Esq. indicated that all of the items referenced are what is now being sought for site plan approval this board and that the applicant has reviewed and is prepared to respond to all of the professional reports received on this application.

Mario Ianelli – sworn - credentials accepted – applicant’s engineer

Mr. Rubin reviewed the violations noted asking Mr. Ianelli to review each one:


Sheet 3 of 3 displayed for purposes of testimony:  Mr. Ianelli indicated the map in the board members file is the reduced version of the display map.  He noted the areas are highlighted as to changes associated with this application.  The bottom of plan is Rt. 46, and in rear is Old Bloomfield Avenue.  Along the rear on Old Bloomfield, the applicant constructed a covered patio to the left/west of building, along curb line replacement of fence with a solid wood cedar fence, and to the north, air condition units were on ground and the new unit is located right in this general location on lower portion of the roof.  Applicant also intends to increase number of handicap units on site, adding four where there were two.

Fence was replaced, and reports by professionals noted concerns with sight distance so he has adjusted the fence to increase sight distance.  Mr. Ianelli indicated the applicant will be able to achieve sight distance.  The fence has to be located behind where it is now in the sections highlighted to be out of the sight distance. 

Russ Lipari:  why was original fence removed?  Discussion ensued noting that this fence and a portion of the existing building is located in the township’s ROW.

Gary Lewis asked Mr. Ianelli to clarify in schedule of regulations on sheet one of three; what is the status of the impervious coverage.  Mr. Ianelli indicated he would cover this later in testimony.

Mr. Ianelli continued:  Sheet 3 of 3 display reviewed as to the area to the north of the covered patio that is right off the covered patio, this is a paver stone patio.  It does increase impervious coverage.  Ordinance allows for 75% coverage in this zone, and site exceeds it.  Site was 85.35% and it goes up by .5 percent.  This is the rear of the site and the fence does a decent job of screening from the roadside of equipment and seems odd to have fence in ROW but it works well to shield restaurant amenities/fixtures/units.

He indicated:  it is an on grade patio.  Mr. Lewis asked:   are there any groundwater drainage problems or is there a need for any future mediation of groundwater facilities due to added expense of surface?  Mr. Ianelli indicated that it is only 204 sq. ft. and he sees no adverse impact and hasn’t seen any since the patio exists there now.

He continued:  There was a slight change in the covered patio area.  Today is a canvas canopy over an aluminum framing.  Before the applicant had plastic windows that rolled, they installed a plastic window on frame which is more permanent since it is durable and it comes out and is a seasonable area.  It is not conditioned to be used in the colder months.

There was change in the type of material that covered roof area:  it is covering a temporary seasonable use.  He reviewed the prior three resolutions from township staff, and this temporary use still fits into what exists today and is still within spirit and intent of original resolution.

Russ Lipari asked:  as to the area just discussed:  is this designated as smoking area?  Mr. Ianelli indicated the owners will testify to this use.

Gary Lewis asked:  as to canopy, operations not withstanding, as part of this submission, was there an analysis submitted to the township, and he is curious to hear as to why it is temporary structure.

Mr. Ianelli indicated:  the structure is permanent; the change was to the canopy structure.  Mr. Lewis questions how you can replace a ceiling membrane of this size with open sides and not undergo some sort of engineering review to address concerns on uplifting of the canvas top. 

Mr. Rubin indicated this is outside board’s jurisdiction.  Mr. Lewis indicated this is a variance application.  Mr. Rubin indicated the Board can ask and the applicant will comply if he can, noting the applicant has tried to be cooperative and will do whatever Planning Board requires. 

Mr. Lewis concurred noting that the applicant needs to understand to request authorization to do this work, and not to come in after completed, and now we are here to make sure what was done is right and he is having a hard time understanding why this was done this way questioning how far does it go when it is well know by this applicant that there are rules and laws in this community. 

Russ Lipari indicated he appreciates the business represented, and respects that and is glad they are in our community, but the fact is that although the owners are cooperative; this Planning Board has also been fairly cooperative to the owners.  The Planning Board has been more than cooperative.  Mr. Rubin concurred.

Parking spaces discussed:  The patio area was constructed without permits.  Does this impact parking on site? Mr. Ianelli indicated site was approved for 324 seats, and owners provided a seat count of today, and wanted to determine if the use differed.  Approved 324 seats, and based on this count and varying component of banquet hall, looking at 276 seats, looking at reduction of 86 seats, and all of this data was developed before office building adjacent approved with cross parking easements.  If you look at this, it did provide measures to improve with shared parking. The spaces available on adjacent lot were for 33 spaces.

Larry Hines asked:  as to seating for the 276 seats:  does this include seating for all areas (i.e. paver stone area as well)?  Mr. Ianelli indicated affirmatively, noting the applicant is not planning on serving out on patio so the number includes all of the seats that will be utilized.

Mr. Hines continued:  although applicant provided a zoning analysis as to discrepancies, from the board approvals of 2000 and 2002, were any of these items impacted so that we would need greater variances or impact variances.  Mr. Ianelli indicated variances are just for what is requested as to impervious; others remain the same.

Mr. Ianelli reviewed photo display, which was marked in as exhibit A1 said display dated 2/22/10 and depicts the outline in yellow with two locations for photos taken.  The underlying photo is from 2007 which was before the improvements were built and is the subject of today’s application. 

A2 exhibit dated 2/22/10 is rooftop appliance and said exhibit marked into record.  He explained he went to site and on Old Bloomfield Avenue he took photos of unit.  In cases, he is located about 100’ to 50’ away and a zoom camera was used.  Screening mass was depicted and this is purposely standing out as a screen.  View 2 further to the east, you can see the unit and the corresponding duct work.  You also see the fence and can see how it is screening units.  The original fence did the same job in screening.  Using a photo editing software he added four ft. height screening but applicant is considering putting in a parapet wall constructing it out of timber and existing siding so that it is masked as much as possible.  He indicates this area he feels can be screened successfully.

Professional staff voiced concerns as to noise.  Can this screening installed have any application made to it that it would buffer the sound?  Other application that require, they have noise experts and can utilize material on inside of parapet that could damper the sound.  Sound is dampened buy mass.  This would be done by a certified architect but anything that is done will be done by a professional, and if needed can be done.

One last question asked:  are there any changes being made to the signage. Applicant not seeking any change to existing signage.  Would consolidate all of these requirements to the cover sheet of the plan and this way it is memorialized for future, per Mr. Ianelli..

Mr. Omland:  as to enclosure of HVAC, is it two sided only?  Mr. Ianelli answered affirmatively.  He noted concerns as to what code requirements are relative to separation of unit to enclosure.  Mr. Omland asked:  is it sufficient to meet code and are these two sides accessible?  Mr. Ianelli indicated the design would need to be developed by an architect, noting there are a couple of feet but this design would be subject to construction official review.

Will there be sound mitigation or insulation with permit?  Mr. Ianelli:  doesn’t know if it is required but they will have to demonstrate to code official that standards are being met.  Sound attenuation would be subject to a construction official. 

Handicap spaces discussed:  when you relocate the spaces and supplemental signage added, it must be subject to ADA and all details must be reflected on site plan and this signage should be enclosed in bollard. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  as to patio and coverage, where does run off go?  Mr. Ianelli indicated the only increase is 241 sq. ft., which is close to a single parking space, and he doesn’t believe this would raise concerns on drainage.  Stan Omland is not troubled by this especially with paver stone.

Gary Lewis:  heard testimony on drainage and variances associated with this, did are we going to get testimony for variance request on this application?  Saying it is so small doesn’t offer supporting testimony for relief of additional variance.

Mr. Ianelli testified t hat the applicant was trying to create a place to smoke outside.  He created a small patio area, which helps and smokers are all going out to this area.  The paved area is about 250 sq. ft.  When you look at coverage, most of it is inside the Township’s ROW.  The applicant was asked:  do we have the right to approve coverage inside the ROW.  Mr. Carroll indicated:  It is an enforcement matter.  If you do something on someone else’s property, it becomes the other property owner’s coverage and problem.  This improvement ‘cannot’ be approved by the Planning Board.   

Russ Lipari:  legal issues exist since it appears the entire fence is in the ROW.  Concerns to this board:  There are people that will be using this area, and legally what do we do?  Mr. Carroll indicated this is a municipal township attorney response, and is outside this Board’s jurisdiction:  you can only deal with what is on site.    

Mr. Rubin:  a portion of the building is in ROW as well as the barbeque pit added.  Gary Lewis:  is there additional data on the basis of the variance relief?  That question must be answered, and you must submit this is a C2 type of variance and it is a balancing application.  Discussion ensued on hardship testimony, with Mr. Rubin indicated you don’t have to show hardship but you do have to show reason without a detriment to the public, and have a significant reason as to why it was placed here.   As to its detriment, you have to weigh both sides.  There is no groundwater issue.  A violation doesn’t mean it is a detriment to the public good.  It would be 700 sq. ft. and it is a small area, and the pavers allow water to go thru it.  From a drainage standpoint, in his professional, there will be no impact from this small amount of runoff.

John Visco:  wants Mr. Omland’s input

Mr. Omland:  indicated that the ordinance in place indicates if you have roughly 10,000 sq. ft., then our stormwater management rules kick in.  Threshold applies for all projects of this size so this 700 sq. ft. is significantly below that, and because of that, recharge occurs, and he does not feel this will cause a stormwater management.  This is not to say that impervious coverage should not be responded to.

Gary Lewis:  before moving from variance testimony, question asked of Mr. Burgis, this area is deficient in green space before and this application worsened this condition, and how does this relate to the ordinance on increasing of impervious recognizing that a lot of coverage is off this property on our township lands?

Mr. Burgis:  the applicant can argue under a C2 testimony, and he must be obligated to show public benefit is accrued.  If one was to look at C1, the Board could theoretically look at dimensions of this site and its odd configuration.  As to C2 argument, if applicant is claiming there is public benefit allowing for an area for people to smoke, this is not a health benefit.

One of the things mentioned is that the patio is placed to outdoor patio to construct anything in this area requires construction in the ROW.  What is being asked:  would you or how could you define the hardship of having to put a patio there, so anything you put there would be put in the ROW.   Applicant is making argument for 246 sq. ft. on his property is (sheet 3 of 3 referenced), and coverage discussed as to existing coverage, noting it is along an existing patio area and along an existing parking area and is a really small increase to existing site.  Agreed that that this is a public assembly area and that some tuft area makes a site more pleasing and indicates good planning.  There is no question you are taking more away from site with removal of turf and landscaping. 

Mr. Ianelli:  Landscaping can be enhanced in a more appropriate way and more pleasing way, and it has gotten tired.  Testimony continued on adding landscaping on Rt. 46, and not in rear of property, but would look to see if there is some landscaping that can be provided in this area.  He noted, though, the landscaping would be within the ROW. 

Larry Hines:  before HV equipment was placed on roof, was the heating equipment was o the ground in the ROW between building and fence. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  what happens with the portion in the ROW?  Assuming approval, the township can sit and do nothing or force issue per Michael Carroll.

The HVAC indicates that it may be outside the ROW.  This needs to be located on site.  If parapet is put up/wall to enclose HVAC, will it be within applicant’s property?  Projection of wall is it inside ROW.  Mr. Ianelli:  not know yet but thinks so. 

Art Maggio asked if there are any issues with this roof supporting.  Mrs. White indicated CO required this and that document is on file.  .

Larry Tobias:  Asked if adverse possessions come into play.  Michael Carroll:  no

Opened to the public on testimony offered:

Mr. Art Webber – John Street

He noted he understands that the owner did get a notice for working without a permit, that he ignored this and kept on constructing on site, so wants assurances that all electrical connections were inspected since these are buried.  On porch:  they should not have televisions or loud speakers out on patio. 

Understands the patio is on township property, noting if it were his property, he would want this removed. 

He presented photos of fence, where it is and where it should be.  Marked into evidence as N1 – 5; photos depict fence and inside conditions presented by Mr. Webber. 

Mr. Webber:  it is suicide where fence is located.  There is no room and cars are parked along side of it.  This area needs a sidewalk and fence should be removed from township property if it is built illegal.    He also feels they should go back to white fence since new fence is ugly.  It will turn colors and is terrible, and it looks like scaffolding panels.  There are two units on roof, and the other day it looked like applicant was scurrying to put another unit in.  It is dangerous to walk here; consider a sidewalk here and move fence back, move barbeque, and this area when people are drinking will be a nuisance since when people drink, they are loud, concluding with he didn’t think there should be smoking out in area depicted.

Closed public session

Mike Romanelli – sworn in

Patio area is designed to be used as a waiting area to have cigarette and it removes those that smoke away from front door since it looks bad when people are smoking at front door so want to move them back to this area.  Board members did not think this was a ‘public service’ to allow a smoking area outside.  Eliminating area won’t eliminate them from smoking.  Mr. Romanelli felt it would be more appropriate to have an area to allow smokers to a set area vs hanging at the front door.

Tony Siragusa:  sworn

Grassed area and fire official indicated that there had to be a back door.  It was mud and stone and grass so this area addresses that.  He wasn’t aware of the scope of work until it was completed.

Ladis Karkowsky:  how do you control this area for smoking?  Mr. Siragusa indicated they will try and encourage this.  Most people go out front door.  People are going to do it, but they wanted to give them a designated area to go to so this is the area designated.  Jim Sandham:  no food or anything out there.  Mr. Siragusa:  no

Gary Lewis:  was work was done after notice? Mr. Siragusa indicated no other work was done after patio.  The heating system had to be changed and agreed to change unit, but he never thought that you had to get a permit to get a heating unit. 

Russ Lipari:  white fence went up and down and wooden fence went up.  Mr. Siragusa:  want something right, and the person here is right, they park there and back into the fence, and constantly falling down, and tried to create a wood affect and created a type of man cave area within.  It is a cedar fence. 

The rooftop unit is the best unit you can get.  Russ Lipari:  glad that this is being made right, but some of the things that occurred, there are rules and regulations, and some of these rules and regulations were not followed even after we had many meetings on this, yet this wasn’t done right.

Part of the property is with building on ROW.  This is a pre-existing condition, but this doesn’t provide further encroachment into a city ROW.  Encroachment is in small corner of the building. Concerns voiced over paving over 700 sq. ft.  This is troubling and had the question been asked, what do you think if the answer from the community would have been?    Mr. Siragusa indicated the barbeque is built on wheels and is more for the shoot they held vs. for use:  they have plenty of equipment inside, and is more of a program display of which this is a small component.

Gary Lewis:  How do we reconcile this and bless this condition which never would have received approval if asked since it is within Montville’s ROW? 

Mr. Siragusa:  he feels that this is a good thing and positive, based on prior info about getting out into a safe area should there be fire:   now they have an area and can walk, it is not mud or rocks and this is a positive thing.

Sound:  there will be no sound generated from this site, and only thing you hear is Rt. 46.

Larry Hines asked for breakdown of seating on site for covered patio and seating:

Banquet hall is 100 seats

Main is 90 seats

Bar is 48 seats

Patio is 38

277 total

There is flat screen inside covered patio The top was changed since it was torn and water was coming in, and Mr. Siragusa indicated he wanted the very best so put a new one on. 

Mr. Sandham asked for confirmation that the pads on ground for rooftop units are all gone.  Applicant confirmed. 

Opened to public… No public

Closed to public

Larry Hines asked for confirmation that the valet parking is still being used.  Mr. Siragusa indicated they use the valet if there are parties and/or banquets and restaurant is busy.    

Mrs. White asked how this site is involved with off site street improvements proposed by Lowe’s as to their streetscape plan.  Mr. Ianelli indicated unknown but will check out. 

Mr. Carroll indicated any approval, if granted would be for ‘on site improvements only’ since the Planning Board cannot give approvals for the improvements made on the ROW.  He thought it may be a good idea to have a letter sent to the Township Committee on these improvements within our ROW, so that they could look at the liability issue and the improvements within this area.  At this time we are not sure if the screening of the HVAC will be in the ROW.  No designs exist at this time.  We should also make sure the Township looks at these issues and whatever other improvements obligate Lowe’s as to off-site improvements in this area down to existing junkyard since we are trying to create a pedestrian center. 

Russ Lipari:  Motion made to grant amended/final and minor site plan approval with associated variances on site, with additional information to be supplied on landscape buffering, screening buffering, fire prevention office, construction official, and normal applicable ordinances subject to DRC for landscaping/buffering, Joe Burgis and revisions of site plan incorporating findings of Planning Board this evening by Mr. Omland, including notes for all variances on site, for ADA compliance issues.

Seconded:  John Visco

Gary Lewis – no - feels there should be more greenery along entire stretch along adjacent properties since he removed what existed and without replacement increased impervious

Russ Lipari – yes

Deb Nielson – yes

Art Maggio - yes

John Visco – yes v

Victor Canning – no   Motion Carried

Secretary called alternates:  Lawrence Tobias – Yes and Tony Speciale – Yes (for record keeping)



Motion made to unanimously adjourn made by Larry Hines, seconded by Russ Lipari.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

Last Updated ( Monday, 12 April 2010 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack