Board of Adjustment Minutes 7-7-10 Print E-mail

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 drivewayAPPROVED – 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.

Absent with explanation

Absent with explanation

Certified to 11/4/09 hearing

 
Last Updated ( Thursday, 05 August 2010 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack