|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:30 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
Minutes of April 8, 2010
No New Business to be Conducted Past
l0: 00PM
ROLL CALL
Mr.
Maggio - present Mr. Karkowsky -
present
Mr.
Sandham - present Ms. Nielson -
entrance noted
Mr.
Lipari - present Mr. Lewis - present
Mr.
Hines - present Mr.
Canning - absent
Mr. Visco - present Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present
Mr. Tobias (alt#2) - present
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF
COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION
No
public. Several board comments carried
to end of hearing.
PLANNING
BUSINESS – carried to end of hearing
WAIVERS
PMISC10-11
Art Studio – 112 Main Rd. B: 56, L: 10 – 452 s.f. art studio used only by Dr.
Yeager in spare time – no set hours – no signage requested
PMISC10-12
Boomerang Pharmaceutical Communications, Inc. – 112 Main Rd. B: 56, L: 10 -
office for pharmaceutical sales – 2 units 1,120 s.f. and 1,540 s.f. - 13
Employees – 8am-6pm Mon-Fri – 24”x24” sign placard
PMISC10-13
Gorny, Margaret - 112 Main Rd. B: 56, L: 10 - 420 s.f. psychotherapy office – 1
employee – 2-3 hours per day Mon-Fri – no signage requested
PMISC10-14
Chemtex USA
– 150 River Rd.
GB3 – B: 123, L: 21 – office 845s.f. for office administration sales – signage
in compliance with approved theme – hours of operation 9am-5pm Mon-Fri – 3
employees
All
waivers are tenants that existed for years.
The waivers were filed to address sale of a building. The waivers were approved subject to sign
theme, use letter and agency findings in a
Motion
made by: Russ
Lipari
Seconded
by:
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 – Corrective
Amendment - Eligible: Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Tobias,
Larry Hines, John Visco,
Jim Sandham, Tony
Speciale, Ladis Karkowsky,
Art Maggio
Motion
made by: Jim
Sandham
Seconded
by: John Visco
Roll
call: Gary
Lewis, Larry Hines,
John Visco, Jim
Sandham, Tony Speciale,
Ladis Karkowsky, Art Maggio
(Note Mr. Lewis entered)
CORRESPONDENCE
PMSP/F06-19 Paddock Farms – 98
Passaic Valley Rd. – B: 125.12, L: 16, 17 & 18 – dismissal
Motion to dismiss made by: Russ Lipari
Seconded by: Art Maggio
Roll call: Unanimous
MINUTES
Minutes of
3-11-10 – Eligible: Art Maggio, Jim Sandham,
Russ Lipari, Larry
Hines, John Visco,
Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, Victor Canning, Gary
Lewis, Lawrence Tobias & Tony
Speciale
Motion made
by: Tony
Speciale
Seconded: Jim Sandham
Roll
call: Unanimous
INVOICES
Michael
Carroll, Esq. – O/E for: 33.75, Trust for: $438.75, $270, $33.75; $33.75,
$33.75, $33.75
Omland
Engineering – O/E for: $742.50; Trust for: $303.75, $187.75, $607.50, $540,
$135, $270
Burgis
Associates – O/E for: $202.50; Trust for: $93.75, $300
Motion made
by: Russ
Lipari
Seconded: Art
Maggio
Roll call:
unanimously
LOI/DEP
NOTIFICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
PSPP/FC09-10 Trinity Baptist Church – 160 Changebridge Rd. – B: 124, L: 12.3 –
Prel/Final Site Plan with variances – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 4/17/10
Present: Jerry Driesse, Coordinator for Church
Frank Scangarella,
Esq.
(Note:
Mr. Speciale stepped down due to being noticed)
(Mr. Tobias entered)
Frank Scangarella,
Esq. – present for church. Application is for preliminary/final site
plan with variances.
Present for
testimony:
Bob James, PE
and PP
James T.
Cutillo, architect
Jerry Driesse,
deacon
All sworn by
board attorney
Mr. Carroll
also gave the oath to the board professionals.
Mr. Driesse: indicated
he is a Board deacon and takes care of the practical affairs of church. He reviewed the history of development of
church testifying to their moving to the community, their membership, their
staff, their school, which is fully accredited, noting it is in operation for
25 years, that they have 175 students which come from members of church and
surrounding area. There are 20 teachers
on staff and the school enjoys a good reputation of private schools in the area.
There is one
deficiency in school and that is the lack of a comprehensive physical education
program, explaining they are now conducted on the greens and sometimes they
receive help from Board of Ed to use facilities. This application is for that purpose: construction of a gym.
Gym would be
used mainly for members of church and for the school that is operated on
premises and believe it is vital to all to be physically fit and encourage
older people to be physically fit so this gym is envisioned for this purpose.
Kitchen
facilities are located in existing building.
Gym is limited: there is a bleacher
area, locker rooms and basketball court.
This use is intended for a gym use only, not a gathering hall. He noted appreciation of board members and
staff in land use for all the meetings and assistance given the church on this
project.
Gary
Lewis: this is a reduction in the number of parking
spaces that would be provided, acknowledging the banked spaces for now, but
what is proposed on this plan is fewer spaces after this gym is
constructed than what exists now. Will the
Planning Board get testimony on parking demands today vs. a reduction and why
you are not providing more spaces which would normally occur on expansion of
sites? Mr. James the engineer to testify
to this since he developed the site plan.
Mr. Lewis wanted assurances the engineer has knowledge of church
operations? Mr. Scangarella indicated
affirmatively.
Mr.
Lipari: will this engineer respond to
concerns of Campagna? Mr. Scangarella
indicated affirmatively. At this time
the engineer testified stating credentials, which were accepted by board, also
noting he is a PP.
Mr. James gave
a brief overview of project:
Marked in as evidence: A1 – 1984 site plan displayed and reviewed by Mr. James
who reviewed the site plan, discussing dedication of property to straighten out
Changebridge Road which then resulted in creation of the 5 ½ acre lot. This approval showed the building of the
church, the parking lot, and it shows that there was always a plan to defer
parking spaces at the northerly end of the lot.
It was also planned to run a driveway at the north. This was changed on a later site plan. Zoning table at that time discussed,
indicating at that time, there was no coverage, but it was about 62%. Parking approved at that time 239 spaces, and
deferred 38 for 277 total spaces.
Requirement then and now is 274 spaces.
First step was
to bring a concept to subcommittee and that was a plan noted concept 2. This
concept plan was marked as A2, sheet one of one, dated 2/24/2009. The subcommittee recommended relocating
this temporary structure to the area depicted.
A3 aerial photo displayed, and marked
in as evidence. This proposed superimposed elevation is to
show the relative size of the building in conjunction with the existing
building.
This plan was
implemented into the site plan document.
Sheet 7 of 10 is colored and slightly modified. A4
marked in as colorized site plan.
Plan shows the
church, removal of parking spaces and removal of landscaping to accommodate
fire official comments. Adequacy of
parking shown on existing site plan voiced.
Ordinance required having 274 spaces.
Plan has 279 shown, but 200 would remain in existing parking lot and
additional 79 would go into the rear.
The parking is adequate, parking lot is not filled, and they have 400
people on Sundays. Fire Department wanted some
spaces removed to improve fire safety.
Because
concerns were raised with streetscape and landscaping details, and coupled with
the fact that at some time in the future the church acknowledges they will be
redesigning the entire parking lot, it is felt more parking may be able to be
achieved since right now aisles are larger than needed and reconfiguration may
allow church to install larger landscaped areas.
The church is asking
that this site plan be treated favorably, and would accept that the church be
required to build the deferred parking in future, at which time they would be
required to submit a detailed engineering parking lot for the entire parking
lot, change of aisle, installation of landscape aisles, upgrade lighting as
well as a new stormwater management system.
The need now is for the gym since now they are in the parking lot for
recreation, so this is a compelling need.
The secondary issue is that the gym would not be used when services are
being held
Variances
discussed: impervious coverage 60.5% to
60.7%, 39’7 setback at closest point, and 57.4’ and requires variance. If building was located in rear, it would not
require a variance. Variances also
required for parking. Parking spaces 213
to 200 where required is 274. Waivers requested: EIS – no objection voiced to this
waiver. There are existing variances on
site also noted. Lighting variance for
height also required.
Campagna
development: the Campagna development is
in northeast, part of east between the school field and property. This property is designed for a sheath off. There is no drainage system. It flows over grass. It runs into grass and goes into the drainage
ditch on northerly side.
Traffic
circulation and traffic impact: no
traffic impact. It does not generate
traffic. Parking lot function is the
same, but those parking spaces in the corner are replaced with building.
Lighting and landscaping,
grading and utility plans discussed.
Impact to adjacent properties on lighting: keeping most all existing lights. They are keeping light near gym, and putting
lights on northerly side. No other
change in lighting and this is another variance for height.
Ladis
Karkowsky: who maintains drainage inlet. Church maintains inlet. Mr. James indicated he saw no maintenance
problem. The ditch was partially
overgrown. See there is little
maintenance done there. It may be
considered wetlands area. Mr.
Lewis: this is the only parcel served by
this drainage ditch, and is flowing in this direction, so if the drainage
inlets are required to be maintained, then the ditch must be maintained.
Art Maggio:
how was this in last rains? Mr.
James: imagine it did pond but drained
out.
Variances and
standards as set forth on the bulk schedule and discuss these with the board
the manner by which the applicant is meeting these requirements. Mr. James discussed how the deviation of the
zoning ordinances advances the MLUL.
Feels it promotes public health safety, morals and general welfare. Church and school is inherently beneficial
use.
Anything that
allows a beneficial use especially one for over 30 years to be viable and more
viable for the future is benefits that substantially outweighs detriment to
deferred parking, and if not needed, leave it green instead of putting in
blacktop. The variance being requested
is not a large variance, and although there is a residence there, doesn’t
believe the variance for yard setback is detrimental. Mr. James does not believe coverage is a
major detriment, since it was originally planned for that. Applicant indicated that prior to building
deferred parking, they would return to the Planning Board for approval with a
new redesign of parking lot as previously indicated.
There is some
impact to the residence existing, but benefits outweigh negative.
Mr.
Burgis: MLUL specifically says when
there is a C2 argument; you cannot use inheredly beneficial use. Mr. Scangarella agreed. Mr. Burgis:
how does the C2 argument contribute to advancing land use laws is his
testimony to allow the facility to function more effectively? Mr. Scangarella elaborated.
The building
was originally located in the rear of the property which effectively would
minimize variances, but its location although in variance was recommended to
minimize detrimental impacts to Campagna site and streetscape and concerns of
children crossing thru a parking lot to access a gym.
Mr.
Sandham: the parking lot as laid
out: is ADA compliance achieved? Mr. James:
this facility has considerable access to ADA.
There are 20 spaces handicap with closest spaces to entrance, as well as
near the entrance to the gym. There is a
depressed curb so can maneuver this for handicap.
Discussion
ensued: What triggers the church coming
back to the Planning Board for expansion of the parking lot. Mr. James:
it would not be in the next few years, but if the church saw a
significant increase in membership or attendance at services, it would be up to
them to come back. Mr. Sandham: do you have a different schematic for
additional parking lot? Mr. James: no design at this time that would address all
of the issues indicated on a new design.
Mr. Sandham: if you were to
design, what may be the increase without going to the banked parking? Mr. James:
might be a few more, but 279 spaces should be enough well enough
addressed to carry this church into the future.
Gary
Lewis: without dealing with banked parking, you
reflect seating for 90 in gym which is more than a typical recreational
scenario. Concerns voiced that there has
been no testimony of simultaneously events occurring at the same time. Also: Shouldn’t
the design be engineered up front, and deal with these issues now? Have this plan part of the file since you are
asking for a variance from parking now. The
alternative is to design that parking and put it in the file. If it needs to be done, then the township
only has to pull plans.
Mr.
Scangarella: stipulated on record that
the church would have no simultaneously activities in the gym and church at the
same time. There will be no basketball
games on Sunday. No rentals, no leasing
to other groups. This is for church use
only.
Larry
Tobias: will church services conflict
with activities of gym? Mr.
Driesse: only competition for gym games
would be to play other schools. Private Christian School
and leagues we play in have little bus loads.
Mr. Driesse indicated you may see about 20 parents a game, that is a lot
since this is not a public school scenario.
Mr.
Scangarella: discussed the design of the
deferred parking design now? Mr.
James: indicated there is expense
involved in this, and he is not going to predict what the stormwater management
might require into the future. He did
not think a design approved today would carry to the future in stormwater
management.
Stan Omland: agreed
the regulations governing stormwater management change. One benefit of designing it now is that you get
protection of five years with a potential for an additional five years, and the
church then has protection to build it. Mr.
Omland indicated that the design of the parking lot may be a good idea to phase
this in now, knowing cost, knowing protection, just a thought, and in doing so,
give you understanding how the parking lot is configured. You would see more parking spaces, more
aisles, elaborating on size of aisles, etc.
Mr. Driesse
responded as to getting involved in the redesign of the parking lot for
future. He indicated that his experience
over the years is that the approval is only good for so long, and understands
what is said, as to may having some protection, but would be leery of spending
monies now on a plan that may not be implemented in seven years, and then have
authorities saying it isn’t good anymore.
Mr.
Omland: one of the things that the
resolution may do is acknowledge this planning document now so that when the
day comes when the church comes back, we come back to the Planning Board with
that resolution. Can phase his project
out over years, explaining how, noting you can get up to ten years protection
against changes. May be right but the
resolution speaks to the history of cooperation. There are times we deferred parking to be
assured it can be built, and sometimes we don’t need designs, and Planning
Board will weigh this application.
Mr.
Driesse: would like to see this deferred
until future but it is the church’s Intention is to abide as to what the
township wants, listened to comments and respectfully asks for deferral of
parking.
Deferred
parking is triggered by the request of a municipality. Discussion ensued. Russ Lipari: always had a strong feeling for board
professionals. Feels doing this now would
satisfy the board, professionals and protect the church people in the
future. Don’t know what the expense
would be but feel it would be an advantage to the church and to the
neighbors. Think it is a good idea and
would like to see it happen.
Mr.
Omland: suggest that it has been done
with a design, but under footnote 2, if it is clearly indicated that all of the
required parking is not needed, can release parking, and that future parking
spaces be shown to be made available.
Doesn’t mandate the design be done, but it should be shown on site
plan. Understand the church’s plight,
but you have to look at what the future parking may be.
Mr. James
indicated deferred parking has been on this site since 1984. To this date, this deferred parking is not
necessary to be implemented so requiring this applicant to do engineering that
may never come to pass, but affects church and gym facility and it is a budget
issue is a problem and the applicant would like to do what can be reasonably
done. There is nothing to indicate that
spending $25G for stormwater management on a five acre parcel will ever be
implemented.
Russ
Lipari: will the church ever expand? Mr. Driesse:
if our church membership grows substantially that we need added work, we
would be happy to pay for the additional work if the time comes for the church
because they need it. There are 200
members, and if it goes up to 500 members, there would be adequate funds. Mr. Maggio:
asked if growth was stable: Mr.
James said yes.
Mr.
Lipari: summarized that the applicant is
willing to take the risk since if the membership increased, the church would be
in a financial position to do it.
Gary
Lewis: is empathetic but is concerned over period of
time for an applicant to go forward if additional parking is needed and
seconded issue, what are our expectations of that parking lot? There are streetscape needs, increased
landscaping, and it is a big project, and would like to see all parties be on
the same page to know full well what the community’s expectations are should
the parking lot be needed. It is an
involved project, and although sympathetic, he is not convinced that it isn’t
wise for the township to request the engineering of the deferred parking at
this time.
Larry
Tobias: understand the church’s position
short term, but in terms of long term, what are the risks of changes occurring in
the future. Mr. Omland reviewed history
of stormwater management, and fear there would be more stringent controls being
developed now. Would hope, but have no
idea.
Jim
Sandham: what is your maximum use of parking lot
now? Has it ever gone to full capacity
now? Mr. Driesse: on a good Sunday, 2/3 of the parking lot for
existing spaces (160 spaces) which is maximum of what they use. Pick a number as to when this plan must be
developed, and give them more time to create a fund for this purposes. Mr. Carroll:
if what you are looking is a condition of a resolution for a fully
engineered proposal.
Stan
Omland: when you talk about future
parking, there is more of a potential for growth and we deal with this with restaurants,
but to promote the goals and sentiments voiced, perhaps the applicant should
arrange to come back every two years to update the Planning Board on the status
of the church/growth/deferred parking.
Mr.
James: discussed buffer requirements
along lower Rockaway
River noting if the
buffer was expanded, there would be no expansion of the parking lot at
all. This was the concern he has.
Larry
Tobias: does applicant have some
agreements with overflow parking with one of the banks. Mr. Driesse:
no
Opened to the
public:
Thomas Jones, lives
in Campagna 136 Changebridge Road – not objection to what is said, and in
soliciting residents and board of trustees, there are five concerns:
To ensure heavy
rains and run off will not run into Campagna property. Now there is an area of grass that will be
filled into forty feet of property line, and before property line is a swale,
but church cut a tree down, and most of the swale in his area has been destroyed. The runoff now is quite a bit that enters into
the two drains on east and west, and with extra blacktop, there would be more
runoff. Think this will be a
problem. If the swale is repaired, they
would be more comfortable and also asked that the church will maintain the swale.
Lights – no
additional lights – comfortable with that position.
Pete Greendyk,
owner of the small corner property adjacent to this proposed gym, and although
statements indicated that resident was unaffected, this is not true. He knows these men and has great
relationship, and has worked together over the years, giving his family
background of this homestead. The family
lived 80 years in this house; this has been encroachment to this house: the construction of church and then the addition
of church and this building does create a detriment. As to construction of garage on property line
he is concerned about lighting, air flow, and this building is constructed so
that is masses over his home. He already
is impacted by existing air conditioning noise.
Hearing no
further comments, chair closed this portion of hearing.
Jim Cutillo –
prepared plans. Revisions to plan
discussed.
Al and A2
elevations and floor plans reviewed.
Steel structure for the building to house sports activities. Proposing use of masonry structure to blend
in with church and along with that would have metal panel walls and roof. The floor plan depicted is same as in the
site plan and clearly shows playing area.
An alternate
elevation reviewed. A5 marked in as Revised Elevations as exhibits. The building shorten sidewalls and allows you
to see more roof, this gives the building more of a traditional look close to
their suggestions.
DRC report
reviewed. Mr. Cutillo indicated that
although DRC would like to see rooms on second floor be moved to first floor,
the church felt that they couldn’t comply with this: first they are creating a larger footprint
and second, it creates a problem with parking theme. The other issue is that because of the use of
building as gym, it needs a certain height, and in order to have playing area
must have height for sports. Continued
to use on second floor reducing it somewhat in size, and are using wasted space
vs. adding more space. This roof will
reflect a steeper slope. Floor plan
reviewed. A6 marked in as revised floor plans
A7 marked in as colored rendering of
proposed structure. Same as in prior review but rooflines would
slope down more. Color theme would be
more in line with masonry of building of church.
As to air
conditioning units, the air handlers will be located inside the structure and
only the condensing units outside, which can be screened in and it is a
different type of system than what exists now.
Applicant will relocate condensing units away from neighbor subject to
review by board planner/engineer as to placement and screening, preferably to
the side of the garage opposite the residence.
Jim
Sandham: second floor shows exercise room. Is this for education use, and not for
general church membership use? No
plans for gym membership to church members for exercise.
The height of
the building and the adjoining property discussed as to any other way to
mitigate height. Mr. Cutillo indicated
that they would have problems with below grade for drainage and handicap accessibility.
Mrs. White
summarized the various meetings with Mr. Driesse noting that at the time the
subcommittee reviewed this, the members were of the opinion that the home owned
by Mr. Greendky was being considered for acquisition at some time in the
future.
Pete Greendyk
indicated his family is not interested at this time, confirming though
that the Church is interested.
Meeting closed
to public
Motion made
by: Russ
Lipari
Seconded by: Jim Sandham
Mr. Scangarella
– can board reach a decision on this issue tonight.
Mr.
Karkowsky: is there enough testimony on
the record? Mr. Omland: question for Mr. James: as to variances and the neighbor objecting to
massing and setback variances, one location was in the rear yard which is
setback from gym to neighbor’s rear line.
Ordinance calls for 20’ and applicant is asking for 15’9 to coincide
with garage but he sees no reason why it can’t be 20’ and eliminate a variance. Realize there is a loss of parking spaces on
this, and why not get the 20’. No
compelling reason why, but it can be moved to the north and modifications made
for fire truck and it could be done to eliminate variance. As to making 100’ rear in order to comply
with this, would have to move westerly in front of the church, and does this
propose a hardship to proofs. Moving it
in front of the church would interfere with entrance of church. Does height conform to the building, and
applicant agreed affirmatively.
The applicant
is asking for a vote, and wrestling with this request, is correction of this
setback to 20’ acceptable. Yes,
applicant would do so.
Plan changes
were made to address fire official’s comments, and suggested intro of curbed
aisles to provide better fire and circulation, and this change was made as a
result of the emergency service.
Landscape
buffering must be accomplished, and applicant submitted revised plans that show
a row of cypress trees. Jim Sandham: if after approval of this plan, there
could be a situation using the Rockaway
River where they could
not build the deferred parking after you give them site plan. If approvals were granted today, and this
parking lot design is a prior approval and grandfathered, is there an entitlement
or are they then subject to new and greater buffers required. Mr. Omland elaborated. Mr. Sandham indicated his concerns noting it would
only be better if they received approvals now.
Mr. Maggio
noted the church hasn’t grown in the last five years.
Russ
Lipari: would like to see parking designed so
community never has to worry.
Mr.
Omland: if site plan were granted for
this project tonight, what is time table for commencing construction? Mr. Driesse indicated that the church
wouldn’t start tomorrow, and is in process of fundraising, and has been at this
for a while, and the need is great.
Ladis
Karkowsky noted he has a sense the Planning Board is in favor of the deferred
parking to be designed, and hates to put pressure on board to deny this, acknowledging
the church’s financial concerns as well as the possibility of not being able to
implement the ultimate plan. Maybe it
might be a good idea to go back to the church and get a better idea of what the
costs would be for design.
Larry
Hines: asked total cost of this project? Mr. Driesse indicated the total cost of the
project is around $800,000 complete. Mr.
James: estimates the engineering costs
to design the deferred parking could be up to $25,000. Stan thought it would be around $20,000.
Mr. Scangarella
talked of delays asking if the Planning Board could give him approval of this
gym plan with a stipulation to come back and give us update. Mr. Carroll indicated you can put this type of
restriction in a deed also.
Mr.
Lipari: timetable discussed. Mr. Driesse hopes to start work this
summer. He indicated that he would agree
to come back in a period of six months, provided that there is no holdup of
permits asking if plan could be made subject to state approvals.
Applicant
would need to submit a revised plan incorporating landscaping upgrades,
compliance with all agency findings, Morris County Soils and Planning Board, to
deal with the additional landscaping plan with the planner; if homeowner
adjacent (Pete Greendyk) agreed to plantings on his lot, relocate the new air
condition unit subject to board professional review, buffer existing air
condition to mitigate noise, no use of gym for outside activities, gym use for
good activities only, maintenance of swale, granting of variances and waivers
requested, and requirement that the applicant
come back six months from release of the building permit for the gym
with a fully engineered site plan as
discussed during testimony, normal applicable provisions of prel/final site
plan.
Motion made
by: Jim
Sandham
Seconded: Russ Lipari
Roll
call: Unanimous – Ladis Karkowsky, John Visco, Gary Lewis,
Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Jim Sandham, Larry Hines,
Larry Tobias
(Note:
Mr. Speciale returned)
Board took a
two minutes recess…
PMSP/F07-12-10-02
- K&S – West Serafin Road –
Amended Subdivision/Variances
& Soil Movement hearing - Notice acceptable ACT BY:
6/22/10
Present: Mike Sullivan, Esq.
Scott
Serafin, applicant
Mr.
Sullivan summarized the amended application for subdivision and variances as
well as soil movement, noting there are several components:
- Permitting entry piers on 2.06
and 2.07
- Temporary real estate on 2.07
- Temporary sales trailer on 2.07
- Modify limit of disturbance on
2.05
- Net fill of 13,989 cu. Yards –
soil removal - noticed for 16,176
cu yards
Mr. Sullivan
noted he noticed for more on the soil removal, but after calculation it was
found there would be less. .
He discussed
the average flanking of walls as to size, noting there is no impact. He acknowledged these pillars have been
constructed without municipal approvals, but applicant was in a bad real estate
market and was trying to promote sales.
The real
estate sign discussed: it is 8’ where 6’
is allowed and applicant agrees to remove the sign at the time the last CO is
issued.
The sales
trailer is temporary, and it was agreed the applicant would remove the sales
trailer when the sales are all completed.
Mr. Burgis
indicated that the ordinance permits 100 sq. ft. for wall area, and that the
applicant did not calculate veneer around wall, and this would be a variance
since it would be over the code.
Mark Walker, PE
– sworn – credentials accepted
Mr. Walker
indicated he prepared an entry pillar plan dated 3/2/10. Shaded areas reflect the existing structures.
Sign on plan
is shown as site sign photo 3 and is constructed on the ROW line, and the
applicant has agreed to move sign out of the sight triangle area. Applicant still need requires relief for
setback of sign since it is based on size of sign, which would need to be 54’
from ROW line to be that far away. Applicant
is proposing 16.3 from W. Serafin
Way. In
addition with respect to the sign, variance needed for the height of the sign,
sign is 8’ where 6’ required. Sign is
built, and the Board has the opportunity to see the effect more than they would
normally see. It fits in nicely. Sign size is in compliance. This is a temporary real estate sign and will
be removed.
(Ms. Nielson
entered)
The piers are
in need of relief relative to the average height of 6.9’ with maximum at
11.9’. The piers are in the ROW line
adjacent to the curb and are constructed as a sales item. It was thought of as a temporary item to
attract sales while also providing some security during construction
process. Every night the gate gets
shut. The ordinance allows the
construction of this wall or fence within the ROW as long as it is approved the
board.
Location of
sign doesn’t comply with location but would be detached from entry way, and is
now in a nice location and safe location.
Board tried to balance this.
Moving back would be appropriate.
Size of the sign what dictates placement. Size of sign exceeds ordinance.
Russ
Lipari: sign mentioned will be taken down and its
support structure totally removed. Gates
will remain open and welded. Piers and
gates will be a maintenance issue that is a responsibility of the homeowners’
association. Lot
2.07 is owned by homeowner’s but lot 2.06 will be in an easement to the
homeowner association.
Temporary
trailer shown and people will park in the roadway to access the trailer and is
a simple trailer to meet sales.
As to
expansion of disturbance area in rear of lot 2.05 , there is no existing vegetation,
the power lines are behind this lot and the applicant needs this area to
enhance the landscaping and although info was provided at time of original
approval, and the applicant gave a 50’ conservation easement, they would like
to be able to move this line to allow them to get more of a rear yard and to
buffer the look of power lines. They
would move line of disturbance right up to conservation easement.
Soil
movement: separate plan dated 12/31/09
with calculations. Soil movement plan
was calculated using the lower lots 2.06, 2.05 and 2.04 and these three lots
were designed for plot plans constructed today.
This allowed calculation of fill.
The upper lots were taken from conceptual subdivision plan. In doing the subdivision plan, also
calculated earth work in stormwater management activities and road
construction, there is a surplus of fill of 2,187 cu yards that we kept on
site, so when calculations were done for six houses on earth work, it was calculated
that soil movement would be 16,176 cu yards.
The applicant didn’t subtract excess material from road
construction.
Applicant will
comply with ordinance on soil movement.
Soil erosion measures are in place.
Has gone thru lower three lots as most sensitive and three severe storm
events and as a result of soil erosion, fencing is mended consistently.
Art Maggio: as
to the landscaping around pillars, will there be landscaping. The applicant indicated there are some
birches on the far side but will add more.
How much trucking involved with soil movement? Applicant indicated 932 truckloads.
Ladis
Karkowsky: asked Mr. Carroll for clarification on this
board having authority to approve structures in a municipal ROW. Mr. Carroll indicated that there is a section
under Fences/Walls that does allow this boards that jurisdictional issue, but
you have to look at this case by case. Ladis
Karkowsky voiced his frustration at applicants who build then come in asking
for approval.
Gary
Lewis: are you aware of any other township ROW’s
having gates as the point of public access.
Mr. Walker was not aware. Mr.
Lewis questioned as to whether or not the Planning Board would have approved
this when the applicant first applied, noting he knows of no area in the town
with this type of feature. It is clear
that the gate is meant to indicate this is a private community. Ladis Karkowsky took offense to the gates for
this exact reason.
Deb
Nielson: does not feel we should allow these gates in
the ROW. Mr. Lewis: are you going to remove the gates? Applicant indicated affirmatively. He would leave the gates during marketing,
and take this down at the time the first CO is issued: these gates must be removed at that time. Mrs. White asked that if the board is considering
any approvals that bonding be required. Applicant
will be moving soil within four to five weeks.
50 trucks a day. Mr. Sandham: route is from Lincoln Park; engineering inspection fees can
be coordinated with Planning Board engineer. Applicant will be requested to
have a Pre Con meeting with Planning Board engineer and traffic safety officer
present.
Mr.
Omland: The access to easements may be
impaired. There is an underground conduit.
Temporary sales trailer is on top of storm filter and no damage to
structure. Limit of disturbance on 205,
notice plan does not show contour which would need variance. These are regulated slopes and additional
disturbance push you over, and received relief on original application. This is a waiver.
There isn’t
much vegetation in what was anticipated is to enhance vegetation for screening,
and are not pushing wall back to conservation easement. Build the grade up so you can landscape. Discussion ensued on slopes.
Net fill: total fill and subtract the cut. Soil movement is characteristics of cutting
and/or filling. For the record, make
application for the 16 thousand plus which is total sum. The
total movement would 31,528 yards which total fill is 23,852 and total cut is
7,676.
Soil has DEP
approval since they are lowering and is part of sewer project and is not in an
area of development and is in areas that are not part of a business area. If DEP commented that this soil is
clean.
Soil Movement
must be off the roads when there is busing.
Planning Board requested that the applicant use Rt. 202 to Valhalla to Old
Lane.
Additional
landscaping will be added near walls. Applicant also agreed to install sidewalk
improvements for frontage on Old
Lane down to Jean Drive. No curbing will be involved in this
project.
Ladis
Karkowsky: unhappy with the walls. Deb Nielson: cannot reward flagrant violations of those
who ignore our ordinances and regulations and sees no testimony as to why this
was done without approval. Her vote will
be NO. Mr. Sullivan indicated the
applicant responded as to his rationale for construction.
Opened to
public
Hearing none,
meeting closed.
Russ
Lipari:
unfortunate that Mr. Serafin did what was done, they are there, and he can’t
see ripping it down and they are here with a proper application requesting
approval. Can’t see it being ripped down
as earlier discussed. The fact his sign
isn’t where it should be, and he has to make sure that the power line company
won’t make him remove it, and I know we have to draw line, making motion for
the entire request. Seconded: Jim Sandham
Ms. Nielson
amended Motion asking that the issue on the fence/pillars be handled separately
since she has no problem with four out of five of the requested approvals. I wouldn’t want to penalize the entire
application on these items. Mr. Hines
seconded.
Mr. Carroll
indicated if the Board wanted to do this it would be better for Mrs. Nielson to
withdraw her Motion and have Mr. Sandham and Lipari amend their original Motion
made by: . Mr. Lipari moved for approval
of all but the walls/pillar, seconded by Mr. Sandham.
Clarification
of motions and Robert’s Rule discussed.
Mr. Carroll indicated that it is easier to do the four first.
Roll
call: Larry Tobias,
Larry Hines, John Visco,
Art Maggio , Russ Lipari, Gary Lewis, Deb Nielson,
yes; yes with comment by Jim Sandham
indicating long before this came to this level and that he mentioned he thought
extension of sidewalk a good gesture to have the sidewalks to Jean Drive and
that this developer acknowledged same.
Mr. Karkowsky indicated yes with comment that it is not personal but
blatant work done without municipal approvals should not be tolerated.
Motion passed:
Larry Tobias, Larry Hines, John Visco, Art Maggio, Russ
Lipari, Gary Lewis,
Deb Nielson, and Jim Sandham - Approval granted for variances,
exceptions and waivers for:
- Temporary real estate on 2.07
- Temporary sales trailer on 2.07
- Modify limit of disturbance on
2.05
- Net fill of 13,989 cu. Yards –
soil removal - noticed for 16,176
cu yards
Resolution to
be subject to all agency findings, bonding to ensure compliance on welding of
gates at time of first CO, removal of all temporary signage and sales trailer
by release of last building permit; and for soil removal movement subject to
township engineer’s supervisor with a pre-con meeting with board engineer and
traffic safety officer affecting all traffic routes and compliance with
performance standards of soil removal.
No trucking allowed during busing hours.
Motion made by
Jim Sandham to approve the pillars
and the gate up to the time of the first CO, seconded by Russ
Lipari Roll call as
follows:
Jim
Sandham –
yes
Larry
Hines –
no
John
Visco –
no
Art
Maggio - yes
Russ
Lipari –
yes
Gary
Lewis –
yes
Deb
Nielson
– no
Ladis
Karkowsky
– no
Tony
Speciale
– yes (alternate #1)
Larry Tobias – NO (alternate #2 – vote
not needed due to Alt. 1) – he felt that allowing this compromises public
safety
5 affirmative
4 no
Motion for
approval of walls remaining passed; gates on these walls to be removed at time
of first CO. Resolution scheduled for next meeting.
PUBLIC/BOARD
DISCUSSION
Mr. Lewis
commented that he was at the Board of Adjustment and that he stopped counting the
number of times references were made to Master Plan after a while since the
board members were very cognizant of the need to make sure they were being
consistent with the master plan. He also
complimented board professionals noting that the Board of Adjustment had
complimentary comments on their input and participation.
Mr. Sandham
asked about Milan: Mrs. White noted that the plan submitted was
reviewed by professionals and that the applicant was relying on existing
non-conformities that no longer exist due to demolition. She indicated both Planning Board professionals
voiced concerns that a better layout can be achieved without the existing
building and that many of the issues of the prior site can be addressed in a
better site plan layout. She indicated
she contacted the applicant and has scheduled a technical meeting with the
applicant (April 21st at 9AM) their professionals and our
professionals to address a site plan that better responds to site plan issues
in view of the vacant lot now existing. As
to soil erosion, this is something that is outside of her department, but she
was pretty sure that the township engineer contacted them for their
involvement. She will discuss this with
township engineer.
.
PLANNING
BUSINESS
Discussion
items:
a) Temporary Sign Policy – Expires 4/1/10 – no
discussion – rescheduled to next meeting
b) Solar Panels – no discussion – rescheduled to
next meeting
c) Sidewalk Element of Master Plan - – no
discussion – rescheduled to next meeting
d) Update Master Plan – Rt. 202 study –
Mr. Burgis
summarized the many meetings held by the Master Plan subcommittee as to the Rt.
202 corridor, which is just one part of a comprehensive master plan. He reviewed the study area which goes from Waughaw Road
encompassing 150 properties to the Boonton border, supplementing it with
mapping and aerials to reflect study area.
A lot of
background study work was done, and this is set forth in the appendix (land
use, environmental, current master plan and zoning regulations). The second appendix will come in with final
version and photographs of each property and description of lots. The plan is broken up in goals and objectives
will have zoning changes as well as design standards and circulation
improvements, all of which are included as background data.
The Goals and
Objectives in this study represent a departure from the current master plan and
this document corrects those. Mr. Burgis
indicated he broke the review down into four specific categories: circulation, design features, standards,
economics. Each has a character to it
explaining how this new plan will address each.
The plan has
ten different land use categories. Some
are being essentially retained the same, some modified and some are new. Twaits
Road: the area in the rear along this roadway is a
medium density residential category which corresponds to R27, and we are
recommending that this be designated for open space acquisitions. Map and changes of this area reviewed with
the members.
The area off
of Changebridge Road
is known for office use (this is where the proposed Quick Chek is filing for
site plan on). He reviewed the various
access roads that were planned some time ago noting on north side of 202, it is
recommended that an access road from Changebridge to the rear of the property
parallel to the railroad be constructed, and if it is built, the
site can accommodate additional development and take traffic off 202.
All of these
lots would have main access onto this road and come down to road and to the
light. If this were to occur, you could
add other uses to the properties. In the
area near Rt. 287 light, another by pass is recommended. This roadway would go down thru the tract
behind Schroths and link up with Changebridge in area of Kayhart. If this happened, it would open up the area
and then we can allow for additional uses.
In these
instances, he would suggest that if someone was to develop this roadway, you
could give additional building coverage provisions, anticipating and
encouraging this improvement to go forward.
The frontage
along 202 on south side would be OB2A zone.
Third
significant change is area down near Boonton town line zoned for residential
use. There are a variety of houses and
some with offices in it already so it is recommended to change zoning to permit
single family residential and allow houses to be converted to office use. This would not be to permit new office
construction, but to allow adaptive re-use of existing structures and
gives economic redevelopment opportunities without changing the area. It was also felt that the house could be dual
use as a residence and office use.
Mr. Burgis
indicated there are several areas that merit special consideration and not part
of this study, mentioning the Pennick property near Taylortown. This property is being set aside for an
individual study in the next phase. This
property if developed would have potential for impact to the municipality. He also noted that in the future the Planning
Board will also be studying the remaining section of 202 up to the Lincoln Park borders. The Towaco Master plan was recently adopted
and is not being touched.
Mr. Sandham
indicated the area that is being recommended for open space has already been
reviewed and Open Space is interested in this coming to fruition.
Ms. Nielson
asked that Mr. Burgis make sure that he mentions the intent of the board in
designing buffers to any existing residential zone and/or other commercial
zones in this document. Mr. Burgis
indicated there was wording already, but would review to make sure it was
clearly depicted.
Mrs. White
indicated she has already noticed for the public hearing on April 22nd,
and that she will need a clean copy to send to adjacent municipalities, county
and township and for public display. Mr.
Burgis indicated he will have colored copies complete in office by Monday.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION
Mr. Lewis
commented that he was at the Board of Adjustment and that he stopped counting
after a while since the board members were very cognizant of the need to make
sure they were being consistent with the master plan. He also complimented board professionals
noting that the Board of Adjustment had complimentary comments on their input
and participation.
Mr. Sandham
asked about Milan: Mrs. White noted that the plan submitted was
reviewed by professionals and that the applicant was relying on existing
non-conformities that no longer exist due to demolition. She indicated both Planning Board professionals
voiced concerns that a better layout can be achieved without the existing
building and that many of the issues of the prior site can be addressed in a
better site plan layout. She indicated
she contacted the applicant and has scheduled a technical meeting with the
applicant (April 21st at 9AM) their professionals and our
professionals to address a site plan that better responds to site plan issues
in view of the vacant lot now existing. As
to soil erosion, this is something that is outside of her department, but she
was pretty sure that the township engineer contacted them for their
involvement. She will discuss this with
township engineer.
.
d) Senate Bill – Time of Decision Rule – not
discussed
Reports from
Board Liaisons: - not discussed
a) Board of Adjustment – Gary Lewis
b) Board of Health – Lawrence Tobias
c)
Environmental Commission – Vic Canning
d)
Water & Sewer – Arthur Maggio
e) Historic Preservation Commission
– John Visco
f) DRC – Deb Nielson
g) Site Plan/Subdivision Committee –
Russ Lipari Chair, Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah
Nielson, & John Visco (alt)
j)
Economic Development Committee – Tony Speciale
k) Open Space Committee – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ
Lipari, Deb Nielson & Jim Sandham
l) Master Plan/COAH 3rd
Round – Ladis Karkowsky, Russ Lipari, Deborah Nielson, Gary Lewis
& John Visco (alt)
m) Cross Acceptance Committee – Lad is
Karkowsky, Russ Lipari
n) Highlands
Legislation Review Committee – Gary Lewis
o)
Appointment to Fire Department Districts – Russ
Lipari –Towaco; Tony Speciale
for Pine Brook, Art Maggio for Montville
CONCEPTS
None
Meeting
adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by Larry Hines
seconded by Russ Lipari.
Respectfully
submitted,
Linda M. White
|
