Township of Montville

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF JUNE 2 2010

Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated for the record.

ROLL CALL:

Richard Moore – Present                                   Thomas Buraszeski – Present

Donald Kanoff – Present                                   James Marinello – Present

Deane Driscoll – Present                                    Carl DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present

Maury Cartine–Present                                      Kenneth Shirkey (Alt #2) – Present

Gerard Hug – Present

Also Present:        Brigette Bogart, Planner

                                Stan Omland, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

Swearing in of Professionals

The following application was carried with notice preserved to 7/7/10

ZSPP/FCD25-06-05-09 Lake Valhalla Club – Vista Rd. – B: 11, L: 29 - preliminary/final site

plan/Use & Bulk relief and design waivers for lighting for volleyball area – carried w/notice from 11/4/09 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello                                                                                                         ACT BY: 7/8/10

The following application was carried with notice preserved to 8/4/10:

ZC25-08 Caggiano, Lou Carl – Hog Mountain Rd. – B: 33, L: 32 – variance for construction of a

single family home on an unimproved road  – Carried with notice from 4/7/10         ACT BY:6/3/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Lou Carl Caggiano, applicant

OLD BUSINESS

ZC01-10 Dawer, Rosanne – 6 Peach Tree Dr - B: 125.15 L: 19 – variance for impervious coverage of 7,572 s.f. where 5,900 s.f. allowed and 6,404 s.f. exists for construction of wheelchair accessible ramp and extension of driveway – Carried with notice from 3/18/10 – Eligible: Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Buraszeski, Marinello

                                                                                                                                ACT BY: 6/3/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Rosanne Dawer, Applicant; Mr. Dawer, applicant

Mr. Dawer & Ms. Dawer – previously sworn

We are asking to construct a handicapped accessible driveway and ramp.  The house does not have adequate access.  We have reduced the size of the proposed circular driveway and are replacing part of the driveway with pavers.   We have investigated alternative means to access the residence.  We engaged an expert in accessible design and occupational therapist to review the arrangements we currently have.  They looked at 4 different ways to get into the house, the side of the house, the front, the garage and the rear.  It is determined that the only handicapped accessible means to enter the house would be through the front. 

Ms. Bogart – We looked at the plans and the circular design of the driveway would be in accordance with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Omland – They have made efforts to reduce the impervious coverage but could the ramp be less than 20’ wide.  The plan shows 20’ wide concrete ramp.  Ms. Dawer the 20’ means the length not the width it is 10’ wide.  Mr. Omland – Stormwater management will be dealt with at the time of the construction permit?  Ms. Dawer – Yes.

Open to public – none

Mr. Marinello – What is the impervious coverage they are asking for with the new plan?  Ms. Bogart – 7,572.  Mr. Cartine – 28% over allowable.

Mr. Ackerman – The applicant has not asked for a C1 variance.  The question is whether it promotes the zone plan or zoning ordinance as it relates to the C2 variance.  

Closed to public

Motion to approve the application, fits in with the neighborhood, is more aesthetically pleasing, promotes the zoning plan, the applicant made effort to limit impervious coverage, subject to submission of an as-built, stormwater management as discussed, additional landscaping to be approved by the board professionals  made by: Cartine; Second by: Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza; No - Buraszeski, Marinello, Shirkey; Abstain - Hug

ZSPP/FD28-09 T-Mobile - B: 167, L: 13 – 34 Maple Ave – Preliminary/Final Site Plan/D Variance/C variance filing – construction of a 100’ monopole with 9 antennas and 3 equipment cabinets within a 20’x30’ compound – Carried w/notice from 2/3/10 & 5/5/10 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Cartine, Kanoff,, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello    

ACT BY: 6/3/10

Mr. Cartine certified to the 5/5/10 hearing.

Present on behalf of the applicant: David Solloway, Esq.; Joshua Cottrell, PE

Mr. Solloway – The landlord is not allowing the applicant to move the facility further on the property if it affects any parking spaces on site. 

Teresa Begley, project manager for T-Mobile - sworn

Communicated with landlord and he emailed me that there shall be no loss of parking spaces as it relates to this application. 

                A16 - Email dated 6/2/10 to Teresa Begley from Landlord

Ms. Begley – The landlord indicated that they need more parking spaces. 

Mr. Solloway – There is an option that the facility can be moved to the rear of the property but would effect circulation and another option moving the facility 50’ back.  The engineer will review the options.

Joshua Cottrell, PE – sworn

Reviewed the site for the Board.  The back of the parking lot is in a wetlands buffer; T-Mobile can get a permit for the back aisle, a 40’x30’ area, but would block circulation along that back aisle.  Cannot locate on vegetative area near there, would not be able to get DEP permits to allow that.  Have to limit construction in buffer area to paved areas as per DEP.  If we shift the compound 50’ to the north, we would be closer to the property line, it would be a 15’ rear setback but no loss of parking and no change in circulation. 

Mr. Omland – I found a 1998 parking approval and it is conceivable to keep the number of parking spaces by making the current slightly oversized parking spaces smaller.  There is also future parking approved with the 1998 planning approval. Mr. Omland – The parking code has changed since 1998; they are currently over code with the new parking ordinances.   

Mr. Cartine – If they currently have more parking spaces than required by ordinance then the facility could be moved closer to the rear of the property.  The original idea to move this back as far as possible was a good idea.  I do not have enough evidence to approve this.  How many spots can be striped according to the code, how many are they over and how many would be lost, what change can be made in circulation plan? 

Open to public – none

Ms. Bogart – This site was approved for additional parking spaces and the spaces were approved in the front of the building so they could replace spaces in the rear of the property for those previously approved as future parking without additional impervious coverage variance required since already approved.  Mr. Cartine- Further away from homes is better. 

Carried with notice to 8/4/10 with an extension of time to act to 8/5/10

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. DiPiazza stepped down on the following application

ZC4-09-3-10 Abbott – 80A Stonybrook Rd.– B: 3, L:14.04 – impervious coverage 31,406 s.f. vs 13,300 s.f. allowed (26,200 s.f.) existing  variance for addition to single family home.  Notice Acceptable                                                                                                 ACT BY: 6/30/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Joseph Mianecki, PP, PE

Joseph Mianecki, PE, PP – sworn

Mr. Ackerman – 2 issues.  Res Judicata as relates to prior denial in 2004 and, interrelated to that, whether or not this proposal still presents a two family or mother daughter residence which would require a use variance which you have not applied for.  If either applies you cannot proceed.  Mr. Marinello – So you will provide testimony as it relates to these issues.  Mr. Schepis – Yes.  Mr. Ackerman – It is up to the Board whether the present application is substantially different from the prior 2004 application that was denied.    Mr. Schepis – It was previously determined that it was 2 structures joined by a chute.  The applicant appealed the zoning officer decision and the board upheld the zoning officer decision that it was determined to be 2 principal structures.  This application is proposed to be 1 structure. 

Mr. Ackerman – Reviewed the elements of Res Judicata for the Board.  The determination as to whether this is Res Judicata should be a threshold determination.  Prior application was a 4,183 s.f. building addition with an attached garage with a 6’x30’ connection.  The current proposal requests a 3,400 s.f. addition. The board has to determine if mother/daughter or 2 family.  Mr. Schepis – Reviewed the previous appeal for the Board that was denied.

Discussion ensued on the plan Mr. Mianecki placed on the board as being part of the previously denied application in 2004.  It was determined that the plan posted was from an application that was withdrawn in 2006. 

Mr. Marinello – So we do not rush into anything, I would like legal advice from both sides in writing on res judicata differences between the previous files.    So we are more abreast of the differences and it will help in not wasting the applicant’s time and money.  Wish this could have been more sufficiently detailed so we could make a better determination.  Mr. Marinello – Within the next month, the applicant should update their exhibits, present their argument to the board professionals and attorney, and then our professionals get back to us with their comments so we can be prepared to ask proper questions at the next meeting so that this gateway issue can be determined. 

Carried with notice to 8/4/10 with extension of time to act to 8/5/10

Mr. DiPiazza returned

MINUTES:

Minutes of May 5, 2010 Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Mr. Buraszeski – on page 3 change rear to side.

Motion to adopt as amended made by: Buraszeski, Second by: Driscoll. Roll call: Unanimous

INVOICES:

Burgis Assoc – Trust for: $168.75

Pashman Stein – O/E for: $150; Trust for: $481.25, $375, $531.25

Bricker & Assoc. Trust for: $250

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $207

Motion to approve made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous

RESOLUTIONS

ZC16-09 Van Duyne Properties –17 Van Duyne Ct. – B: 82.12, L: 36 – rear setback 40’ where 75’ required (47.1’ existing); side yard setback 18.4’ where 27’ required for addition to single family home – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, ,Marinello

Buraszeski – On Page 3 paragraph 3 says rear yard should be side yard. Mr. Ackerman – Mr. Schepis has requested that on that same page  paragraph 3 change requested to required; to add 40’ in front of rear setback in paragraph 3; and Mr. Schepis had a comment on the standard condition of inspection of property now and thereafter for the right to go back into the property, Mr. Schepis wants it to state prior to CO.  Mr. Hug - leave it in as to inspection, no change as to rear setback being 40’ in the neighborhood.  Mr. Marinello – The intent is that the township can request to inspect after CO but should be changed to wording that it is to ensure compliance with the resolution. 

Motion to adopt as amended made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Moore, Abstain - Marinello

ZC33-08 - Fille - B: 106, L: 8 - 19 Redding Pl. – side setback of 5.4’ (existing and proposed) where 15.4’ allowed for addition/deck to single family home Approval Resolution – Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Buraszeski; Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello                        

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes –Driscoll, Kanoff, Buraszeski; Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello

ZC24-08 – Potomac Group Homes - B: 52, L: 64 - 55 River Road – Request for extension of approvals for 6 months from June 3, 2010 to June 3, 2011- Granted – Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Moore; Roll call: Yes –Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

ZC30-06 Ambrose - B: 106, L: 20 – 30 Barney Rd – request for extension of approvals from March 10, 2010 to March 10, 2011 – Granted – Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by:; Driscoll Roll call: Yes –Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello

ZC2-07 Bott, Marilyn – 122 Jacksonville Rd. – B: 28, L: 13 – request for extension of approvals from June 6, 2010 to December 6, 2010 – Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Moore Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

OTHER BUSINESS

Planning Board Liaison comments –The Planning Board met on the 13^th and 27^th.  Mr. Burgis reviewed the fair share and housing plan.  Minutes of 27^th not completed yet.

Z/FSPDC23-02 -Morris Plaza - B: 57.01, L: 6 - 350 Main Rd. – request for extension through 6/4/2011

Motion to grant made by: Kanoff ; Second by: Buraszeski l; Roll call: Yes – unanimous

Mr. Marinello – Do we need a policy for adjournments? Asked Ms. Bogart if there are other towns that have such a policy.  Maybe habitual carry overs should be treated as new business for purposes of scheduling. 

CORRESPONDENCE

NONE

There being no further business the board unanimously adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of July 7, 2010.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.