|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF JULY 7, 2010
Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated for the record.
ROLL CALL:
Richard
Moore –Absent Thomas Buraszeski – Present
Donald Kanoff – Present James
Marinello – Present
Deane Driscoll – Absent Carl DiPiazza
(Alt #1) – Present
Maury
Cartine–Present Kenneth Shirkey
(Alt #2) – Present
Gerard
Hug – Present
Also Present: Joseph Burgis, Planner
Stan Omland, Engineer
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
Swearing in of Professionals
The following application was
carried with new notice required to 8/4/10:
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: 8/5/10
The following application was
rescheduled to 9/1/10:
ZMS/D26-09 Mommy & Me – 2 Park
Ave. – B: 39, L: 37 – minor site plan/D variance –
day care TENTATIVE
Mr. Marinello – Our Land Use
Administrator will be retiring at the end of the month. Linda was a force to be reckoned with; an
amazing juggler; has tremendous prfessional credentials that she does not shove
in your face; she ushered us through grant applications and awards; NJ Planners
Awards; Turkey Mountain awards, etc. She never let
politics interfere with her job; our Land Use Office is what it is today
because of Linda.
OLD BUSINESS
NONE
NEW BUSINESS
ZC34-09 – DePalma, Frank – 18
Valhalla Rd. – B: 20.1, L: 33 – variance for
addition to single family home building coverage of 3,261 s.f. where 2,811 s.f.
allowed – Notice Acceptable ACT
BY: 9/16/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Frank DePalma, Applicant;
Lawrence Quirk, AIA
Mr. Quirk,. AIA – Sworn –
reviewed credentials
My clients have been living
at this address for 3 years. They
currently have a dining room table in their family room. They would like an addition to the back of
the house, 525 s.f. which will be constructed over the existing 300 s.f. deck, so there would be
an additional coverage of 225 s.f.. The
only variance requesting is a building coverage variance of 3,261 s.f. where
2,811 s.f. allowed. One story
addition. The house is setback about 95’
from Valhalla Road. The height of the addition would be 17’. It will be a low profile addition. Will create an L shaped area in the back for
privacy. No negative impact on the
neighborhood. Most of the addition will
not be seen from Valhalla Rd. There is no residential property to the
south of this property.
Mr. Burgis – Concur with his
recitation of relief requested. Mr.
Omland – How will additional impervious coverage be dealt with as it relates to
storm water management? Mr. Quirke – All
leaders feed into underground storm lines that go to a stream, but the
applicant will agree to install a drywell to create zero runoff. Mr. Omland – Collect roof drains to addition
to tie into an underground drywell will be the
condition.
Mr. Ackerman reviewed C1
& C2 variances for the Board.
Mr. Marinello – can you
comment on the lighting scheme on site.
D Frank DePalma – sworn
Discussed lighting on
site. The front have a porch that is lit
and 2 lights at garage doors and that is all.
Mr. Quirk – The existing
structure is in the setback but there will be no further impact to that
pre-existing setback since the addition is setback to meet the setback
requirements. The house was vacant for
about 15 years before the applicant purchased it. Mr. Burgis – The addition will not increase
the existing setback that is in variance.
Open to public – none –
closed
Mr. Omland – Suggest
condition upon submission of an as-built survey.
Motion to approve the
application for building coverage variance, beneficial to the neighborhood, in
keeping with the neighborhood, no negative impact to neighbors, subject to
stormwater management controls, submission of as-built survey prior to framing:
Cartine; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, DiPiazza,
Shirkey, Marinello
ZC7-10 –Stafford,
Jr. Robert – B: 37, L: 2 – 7 Capstick
Ave – front setback 31’ vs 35’ (Pearl St) for addition to single family home
and front setback of 19’ (Pearl St) existing and proposed for 2nd
story addition ACT
BY: 9/25/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Robert Stafford, Jr., Applicant; Steven Schepis, Esq.; Joseph
Mianecki, PE; PP
Mr. Schepis – Application for
variance and design exception. Ranch
style house, would like a 2nd story addition and addition to the
side. 2 frontages for this
property. Existing deck on house is 6’
from Pearl St
and the house exists at 19’ from Pearl
St. Design
exception for slope disturbance requested.
Robert Stafford, Jr. – Sworn
The house was built on the
property in 1981.
A1 –
photo array of property
Mr. Stafford reviewed the
photos for the board. The area for slope
disturbance is an area where fill was brought in during the original
construction of the house back in the early 1980’s. The house is small as it exists.
Joseph Mianecki, PE; PP –
sworn
The property is located in
the R-15 zone. Lot
is wooded on southerly half. Frontage on
2 streets. House is situated in the
north easterly part of the property.
House exists at 1,100 s.f.. Proposed addition is 860 s.f.. Pearl
St. is an unimproved right of way. There are no road improvements in that right
of way. Variance requested for front
setback to Pearl St. of 31’ where 35’ required for the new addition and the
existing 19’ setback will have the add a level.
The slope disturbance design exception request disturbing the 20-25%
slope range by 154 s.f.; and in excess of the 25% slopes 1,149 s.f. of
disturbance. 74% disturbed in the 20-
25% range. The slope was a man made slope initially
installed during construction of the house.
Propose an above-ground vegetative depression with a rip-rap fill trench
down the middle for storm water management.
No adverse impact on the neighborhood.
Mr. Burgis – There is no
plans to improve Pearl St. At one point the township was intending on
vacating Pearl St.
but that did not go through. Mr. Omland
– Pleased with the stormwater management controls proposed. Will there be tree removal required? Mr. Mianecki – There is one 8” in diameter
pine that may have to be removed but the applicant would like to move it to
another location. Mr. Omland – This lot
is oversized for the zone, would recommend a no further subdivision clause to
this lot. Mr. Schepis – The applicant is
not agreeable to that requirement.
Mr. Shirkey – Does this house
require a stories variance? Mr. Burgis –
No. Mr. Hug – They are asking for 12’
less than what exists. Mr. Cartine –
Explain the slopes disturbance. Mr.
Omland – The applicant testified that the fill was brought in so man made
slopes. Not a large disturbance with
large vegetation.
Open to public – none –
closed
Mr. Marinello – Should we
require a deed restriction of no further subdivision? Not sure there was enough testimony on the
slopes as they existed in 1981, more inclined to go with it’s a small area of
disturbance. Mr. Ackerman – If the board
deems it warranted you do not need the applicant’s permission to instill a deed
restriction. Mr. Cartine – Do not see
the reason to take away the applicant’s possible right to subdivide if in the
future they have to meet the ordinances of that day.
Motion to approve the
application, steep slopes are a small area; setback relief is requested from a
street that does not really exist: Kanoff; Second by: Hug; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff,
DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello - No
ZC18-09 – Lachnicht, Cynthia – 10
Montville Ave. – B: 51.2, L: 5 – rear setback;
side setback and side setback combined; rear patio setback; staircase variances
– Notice Acceptable ACT
BY: 9/23/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Cynthia Lachnicht, Applicant; Steven Schepis, Esq.
Mr. Schepis – Ms. Lachnicht
purchased the house as complete, received CO and then it was found that in the
rear of the property there was a deck off the back that required a
variance. It was then revealed that the
combined setbacks are not met. Request
36’ vs 40’ for rear setback 34’ sides combined where 25’ required; would like
safer steps in rear of house and a patio.
The pillar setback variance is withdrawn and pillars will comply. Undersized lot for the zone. The patio is considered an accessory structure
and needs to meet a 20’ setback where 9’ is proposed, the patio is at grade and
pavers.
Cynthia Lachnicht - sworn
Purchased the home 2 years
ago. Could not get CO because of
variances on the property.
A1 – photo array of property
Ms. Lachnicht reviewed the
photos for the board. Propose a paver
patio to the rear of my property so I can enjoy my back yard.
Mr. Burgis – Variances
required; sides and combined sides are minor requests; the rear patio varies
setback from 9’ to 15’ in the center than to 35’ near the garage; can cut back
on the setback and still have an attractive design. Mr. Schepis – This lot is more than 4,000
s.f. smaller than what is required; the lot is shallow; its and undersized lot
for the zone. Mr. Marinello – What we
have been trying to avoid is having builders build to the max and then the
owners come back for decks, patios, etc.
Mr. Schepis – The building coverage and impervious coverage complies. The steps would be innocuous and not even
seen by the neighbors. I believe that
the purpose of the ordinance was more towards garages/sheds not at-grade
patios. There will be no negative impact
to the neighbor, the property line is heavily vegetated. Mr. Burgis – Patios and other features are
inserted in the ordinance for a reason; the township obviously wanted it
regulated. Mr. Omland – The impervious
coverage will be within 29 square inches of the ordinance. Suggest an as-built be submitted. The driveway is 35’ wide. They are taking the 20% paver bonus, but the
pavers have to be built according to township specifications and those details
have to be on the plan and prove that they are constructed that way. Mr. Omland – Request submission of drainage
calculations. Mr. Marinello – Do you
have enough information to make a decision this evening? Mr. Omland – Seems they can comply they just
have to use the current methodology and revise plans accordingly.
Open to public
Joe Guarneri – 5 Keller Ct – sworn
Concerned with the visual
aspect and the noise. When the fall
comes there are no leaves on those trees between our houses. Too big of a house on too small of a
property. Would like some sort of
screening.
Mr. Cartine – Can the patio
meet the setbacks and still be viable?
Mr. Burgis – Yes.
Dr. Kanoff – Would you be
willing to install evergreens in rear to enhance buffer. Mr. Schepis – Yes, the applicant agrees. Mr. Marinello – Is this overbuilt for Montville Ave. Mr. Burgis – Yes. Mr. Marinello – Would you agree with this
application more without the shed and the part of the patio that falls outside
the required setback. Mr. Burgis – The
patio can be reconfigured to better address the boards concerns. Mr. Hug - The patio is actually 2’ raised,
not at grade. I think the applicant is
pushing the envelope. Mr. Shirkey – The
numbers on impervious coverage are real close.
10 cars can park on this lot.
Seems they maximized their desires on this lot.
Mr. Schepis – Montville Ave is a
very narrow road. Ms. Lachnicht – My
family all drive SUV’s and you can only fit 4 on the driveway. Mr. Schepis – The applicant will agree to a
14’ setback for the patio instead of 9’.
Public portion closed.
Mr. Cartine – Not inclined to
approve the setback variance for the patio.
Mr. Buraszeski – They can install a patio at the 20’ setback.
Motion to approved
sides/sides combined and rear setback for overhang and stairwell; no approval
with respect to patio since excessive and a patio can be built without a
variance, subject to submission of
calculations as required by board Engineer; evergreens to be installed
as approved by the board/township engineer made by: Cartine;
Second by: DiPiazza; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, DiPiazza, Shirkey,
Marinello
MINUTES:
Minutes of June 2, 2010
Eligible: Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine,
Driscoll, Cartine, Kanoff,, Hug, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by:
Buraszeski, Second by: Hug. Roll call: Unanimous
INVOICES:
Burgis Associates – Trust
for: $540, $405, $472.50, $202.50, $202.50, $270, $101.25
Omland Engineering – Trust
for: $270
Pashman Stein – O/E for:
$168.75; Trust for: $468.75
Motion to approve made by:
Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
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 –APPROVED
– Eligible: Cartine,
Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza
Motion to approve: DiPiazza;
Second by: Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Kanoff, DiPiazza
Z/FSPDC23-02 -Morris
Plaza - B: 57.01, L: 6 - 350 Main Rd. –
request for extension through 6/4/2011 – Granted – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine,
Driscoll, Cartine, Kanoff,, Hug, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello
Motion to approve:
Buraszeski; Second by: Hug; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Kanoff,, Hug, Shirkey, Marinello
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion
re: Board Secretary
Mr.
Marinello – Currently Linda White is Secretary and Ms. Grogaard is Assistant
Secretary and Recording Secretary. We
need to make a choice as to who should be the Board Secretary
Motion
to appoint Ms. Grogaard as Board of Adjustment Secretary made by: Cartine;
Second Hug; Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Cartine – Find Ms. White
to be a great asset and resource and turned out to be a good friend and she is
a great asset to the town. Mr. Hug – She
will be sorely missed.
CORRESPONDENCE
ZC18-03 Ptaszek - 21 Rockledge Rd. –
B: 13, L: 22 – request for extension of approvals to 8/6/11
Motion to grant made by: Hug
; Second by: DiPiazza; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, DiPiazza, Shirkey,
Marinello
ZSPP/FCD/ZMN35-06 – Anton Co.
– 1275 Bloomfield Ave.
– B: 181, L: 1 – request for extension of approvals to October 3, 2011
Motion to grant made by: Hug;
Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes – unanimous
ZDC31-09 Quick Chek – 284-298 Rt. 202 – B: 58, L: 1 & 2 - Use Variance for gas
station/retail – Application Withdrawn
Mr. Marinello – Docket
control, Mr. Burgis do you have any recommendations. Mr. Burgis – Some municipalities have in
their by-laws a restriction of number of carry over’s and then they can dismiss
the application. Mr. Marinello – Requested
a memo from Mr. Burgis on this topic.
Van
Duyne resolution discussion
Mr.
Ackerman – Mr. Schepis indicated that the board denied the access to the
house. The resolution and the minutes
are accurate. The resolution is adopted
with the clarification that the board indicated on the record.
Mr.
Daughtry – Thanked Ms. Grogaard for the cell tower map and chart. We have copies of ordinances for other towns
on cell towers that the township committee is looking out. They have tabled discussions on the sale of
property at 32 Maple due to pending application on 34 Maple. Parsippany is going to review cell tower
applications in this general area that will have to relocate. Would like to have a municipally owned cell
tower in the Pine Brook area. Mr.
Ackerman – Someone from the Township Committee should be here during the 34
Maple application is they are discussing anything related to that
application.
Mr.
Daughtry – October 22nd will be an event for the 7 retirees which
will include Linda White.
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 August 4, 2010.
_______________________________________
Linda M. White, Sec.
Certified to 11/4/09 hearing
|
