|
MONTVILLETOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2010
No New Business to be Conducted Past
l0: 00PM
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 - present Mr. Speciale (alt#1)- present
Mr.
Tobias (alt#2) – entrance noted
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF
COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION
None
PLANNING
BUSINESS
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)
WAIVERS
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
RESOLUTIONS
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
CORRESPONDENCE
None
MINUTES
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
INVOICES
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
LOI/DEP
NOTIFICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
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
NEW BUSINESS
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)
CONCEPT
None
Motion made to
unanimously adjourn made by Larry Hines, seconded by Russ Lipari.
Respectfully
submitted,
Linda M. White
|
