Planning Board Minutes 4-8-10 Print E-mail

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

With explanation

 
Last Updated ( Friday, 23 April 2010 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack