Board of Adjustment Minutes 8-4-10 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 2010

Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated for the record.

ROLL CALL:

Richard Moore –Entrance noted                      Thomas Buraszeski – Present

Donald Kanoff – Absent                                   James Marinello – Present

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

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

Gerard Hug – Present

Also Present:        Joseph Burgis, Planner

                                Charles Thomas, 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 10/6/10:

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: 10/7/10

The following application was carried with notice preserved to 9/1/10:

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: 9/2/10

OLD BUSINESS

Court reporter present for the following application.

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 and variance for side setback of 12’ vs 50’ – Carried w/notice from 2/3/10 , 5/5/10 & 6/2/10  – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Kanoff,, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello                                                               ACT BY: 8/5/10


Present on behalf of the applicant: David Soloway, Esq, Joshua Cottrell, PE; Meghan Hunscher; PP

Mr. Soloway – The landlord has agreed to our modified plan.  We have revised the plans to locate the tower in the north east section of the parking lot as requested by the board.  We will have the 15 banked parking spaces along with 3 additional spaces installed. 

Joshua Cottrell, PE – previously sworn

Mr. Cottrell – We relocated the compound to the northeast section of the parking lot and will take up 3 parking spaces.  The proposal has not changed just the location as per the board’s request.  T-Mobile will construct the 15 banked parking spaces along the westerly side of the parking along with 3 additional spaces.  DEP approvals will be required.  The side setback will be 12’ to the elevated platform where 50’ is required.  The adjacent lot is vacant, owned by Montville Township and in the wetlands.  There will be no substantial negative impact to the neighboring property due to the setback. 

Mr. Soloway reviewed Mr. Omland’s report dated 7/30/10.  Mr. Cottrell – Do not intend to put in curbing but if the board sees fit then will install.  Agree to the remaining comments in Mr. Omland’s report.

Ms. Hunscher, PP – sworn – reviewed credentials

                Exhibit A17 – 5 photos of site

Ms. Hunshcer – Additional variance required with the revised proposal.  The side setback variance has been moved from the previously side of the parking lot to the other.  Reviewed balloon test photos for the board.  The balloon is not visible from Maple Ave or Adamary Place.  Relocated the pole farther away from the existing structure along with any surrounding residences. 

Open to public – none

Mr. Burgis – Will the impervious coverage be met with the additional parking spaces.  Mr. Cottrell – Will comply and will revise plans to indicate the impervious coverage calculations.  Mr. Burgis – will you be landscaping around the compound itself?  Mr. Cottrell – There is existing landscaping on 2 sides and the parking lot on the other 2 sides.  DEP will require us to install additional landscaping near the proposed 15 parking spaces. 

Mr. Thomas – If the board requires curbing, it must be clearly delineated on the plan and if no curbing is required, there should be a note on the plan so there is no confusion.

Mr. Hug – Wasn’t the Police looking for their antenna to be provided on this tower for emergency services.  Mr. Soloway – We are willing to accommodate emergency equipment only on the cell tower as long as it does not interfere with the applicant’s antennas, at no charge.   

Mr. Marinello asked why they cannot locate the tower on the adjacent Township owned site.  Mr. Cottrell – That property is located within the wetlands. 

NOTE: Mr. Moore entered

Mr. Driscoll – Wouldn’t it be safer to put curbing around the compound?  Mr. Cottrell – There will be bollards around the compound; the curbing was related to the new parking spaces.   Mr. Shirkey – Why can’t you put landscaping along compound?  Mr. Cottrell – It would be difficult to be put in the parking lot and may impede circulation.  Mr. Soloway – Will work with the board professionals on landscaping if the board requires. 

Open to public – none

Mr. Driscoll – Did we agree to a tree pole?  Mr. Soloway – We have proposed the tree pole as an alternative, will go either way.  Mr. Burgis – This would be an appropriate spot for a tree pole. 

Closed to public

Motion to approve the application, the applicant has worked to minimize the impact, worked with board on location, no detriment to surrounding area, subject to tree pole, professional reports, police department has right to locate emergency services on the pole, landscaping required near additional parking spaces,  no curbing required made by: Buraszeski;  Second by: Driscoll;  Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

NOTE: Mr. DiPiazza left the meeting

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. Carried with notice from 6/2/10.  Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,, Hug, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello                                                                                        ACT BY: 8/5/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Joseph Mianecki, PP, PE; Robert Abbott, Applicant; Arthur Demarest, AIA 

Mr. Marinello – I think we should start with legal comments first.  Mr. Schepis – I prepared a brief that was submitted to the board previously outlining the prior application in comparison to the existing proposal.  The prior application was 2 buildings attached by a breezeway and was an appeal to the zoning officer’s decision.  The board planner at the time deemed the proposal to represent 2 single family houses on one lot and the board felt it was a 2nd principal structure.  The current application is substantially different so this is not barred by res judicata.  The current proposal is one structure, an addition to an existing single family structure. 

Mr. Ackerman – Reviewed the 5 elements of res judicata for the board.  It is up to the board to determine whether or not this application is substantially similar from the previous appeal application.  If the board says it is not res judicata the board still has to determine if a D variance is required for two-family dwelling or a mother/daughter which is not allowed within our ordinances. 

Mr. Hug – I think the application is substantially different.  Mr. Ackerman – You do not need to vote if it is not barred.  Mr. Marinello – We will go forward with the application tonight but the next issue that needs to be addressed as to why no D variance was applied for. 

Mr. Schepis - We do not believe that a D variance is required.  This is an addition to a single family dwelling.  There is access internally throughout the structure; there is one common septic, well and electric meter.  Though the house is large the internal elements are all interrelated.  Could one segregate the house?  Yes, but that is not what the applicant is looking for.  This is a single family dwelling.  I am sure the board will condition upon approval that the house remains open and interrelated, applicant is agreeable to a deed restriction so it cannot be broken out to a two family dwelling.  The only variance requested is impervious coverage due to a long meandering driveway.  I do not think you can make a determination until you hear the testimony. 


Mr. Burgis – There is nothing hard and fast in the floor plan that says it is a two family but can easily be converted.  I would like to hear the testimony on the layout.  It is my understanding that historically two kitchens are not allowed.  Mr. Marinello – But it is not in the ordinance.  Mr. Burgis – No.

Joseph Mianecki, PP, PE - sworn

                A2 – aerial photo of property

                A3 – plan slope plan sheet 1 of 1 colorized version

                A4 – photos of site

Mr. Mianecki – Reviewed A3 for the board.  This is an 11 acre site.  Slope ranges depicted on plan show restrictions on the property.  There is only one viable location for a dwelling on the property. There is a utility easement restricting the property.  The location of the house it the only flat area on the property.  Propose 40’ radius cul de sac type driveway to mimic the approved adjacent lot which was approved by the fire department for emergency access.  Propose a 3,400 s.f. addition.  Propose impervious coverage of 31,406 s.f. where 13,300 s.f. allowed but property much larger than the zone requires.  Mr. Mianecki reviewed the photos in A4 for the board. 

                A5 – zoning permit indicating that project complies but would need variance if driveway paved

                A6 – approved grading/driveway plan from 2000

Mr. Mianecki – Indicates that the gravel was previously approved as pervious.  Mr. Schepis – The argument is that the driveway was constructed lawfully; we are not questioning the fact that the driveway is impervious.  Mr. Mianecki – In comparison the driveway originally approved is the same driveway that is there today. 

                A7 – photo exhibit of houses in Montville with 2 front doors

Mr. Mianecki – Reviewed A7; which consists of photos of 19 houses with 2 front doors within Montville and are single family dwellings. 

                A8 – elevation plan from Gelvan application previously before the board.

Mr. Mianecki – The Gelvan residence has 2 front doors and 2 kitchens and was not determined to be a two family dwelling.  A lot of applicants I work for now want gourmet and common kitchens.  Reviewed floor plan for the board.  I would not construe this as a two family configuration just because there are two kitchens proposed. The gravel driveway is on top of dirt so there is some permeability.  See no stormwater management issues with this proposal.  Will provide drywells and rooftop drains.  There will be zero increase in stormwater runoff.  Addition will not be seen from neighboring properties. 

Mr. Mianecki – There will be no detriment to neighboring properties or zoning ordinance.  This is 3 acre zoning and the lot is 11 acres.  You cannot see the house from the street.  Reviewed the re-examination of the master plan and this application preserves steep slopes and there are no wetlands impacts, this is the type of development that is fostered by the master plan. 

Mr. Demarest, AIA – sworn

Reviewed the floor plan of existing house for the board.  Propose a floor plan that has public gathering spaces which are lacking within the existing structure.  Total bedrooms will be 6 as allowed by the septic system.  It is our intent that the home not be divided into separate residences.  There would be no garage on the addition side.  This is a common layout for a home of this size.


Robert Abbott, applicant – sworn

I do not presently live on this property.  This is my parents existing home.  I want to take over the property but cannot fit my family in there.  I have three kids.  We looked at existing house and looked to see how it could be modified so we can all live there comfortably.  This was the best overall solution to make this work.  My parents would be living with us at least part of the year.  I do not want a two family house; do not want to share it with anyone else but my parents and family.  It is zoned single family and I will not turn it into a two family.  We agree to a deed restriction that this house will remain as a single family and will not be segregated into a two family dwelling.  Inspections by township officials will be allowed

Open to pubic – none

Mr. Burgis – Please review square footage on site.  Mr. Mianecki –There is 2,667 s.f of existing building; propose addition of 3,400 s.f.; propose 6,067 s.f. building coverage where 6,600 s.f. is allowed; allowed 13,300 s.f. impervious; existing 26,200 s.f. which includes a driveway consisting of 23,533 s.f. and 2,667 s.f. existing home plus the 3,400 s.f. addition and an additional 1,806 s.f.  of driveway modification.  So the project would consist of an additional 5,206 s.f. of impervious coverage.   Mr. Mianecki reviewed other options that were considered for the lot and determined that this was the best layout with the least amount of variances required. Mr. Thomas – Is there any use for the basement.  Mr. Demarest – the existing house is on slab and the addition will have a basement for mechanical purposes.  Mr. Thomas – the attic, will it have habitable use?  Mr. Demarest – No, it will be for storage and A/C equipment. 

Mr. Shirkey – 4 sets of stairs, 2 full laundry rooms, 2 full kitchens to be used by Mr. Abbott and his parents when they are there.  See this impervious coverage variance as self incurred hardship.  Mr. Buraszeski – So you would be over the impervious coverage ordinance by 18,106 s.f.  Mr. Mianecki – Yes. 

Mr. Marinello – Asked Mr. Burgis about changes to the master plan.  Mr. Burgis – No changes in use proposed for this area in the Master Plan, it is a residential area.  Mr. Marinello – Will there be tree removal?  Mr. Abbott – No, but we do have a state approved forestry management plan and there are annual inspections.  Mr. Marinello – Will the addition be visible from the surrounding parkland.  Mr. Mianecki – In the winter  yes; in the summer no.    Discussion ensued on impervious vs. pervious as per DEP regulations.  Mr. Cartine – Is this a one family house or a two family house?  Mr. Burgis read the definition of each into the record.  The floor plan does not show separating walls.  By definition this is a one family dwelling unit.  Mr. Cartine – Is this house beyond what should be permitted simply based on the amount of impervious coverage.  Mr. Burgis – The house meets building coverage ordinance, we have a cap in the zone for impervious coverage no matter what the lot size.  The significant distance from the road requires the additional impervious coverage.  Mr. Schepis – The house is not too large for the zone, it is way under the building coverage allowance by the ordinance.

Closed to public

Mr. Moore – Based on the shape of the lot, easements, slopes, etc. prove hardship to the property.  Mr. Marinello – It was known to the owner that variance would be required for any additional impervious coverage.  Mr. Marinello – He gave away a chunk of his impervious coverage for that access driveway.  Mr. Cartine – That additional impervious coverage allowed a lot to be buildable, our planner tells us that given the size of the house that this is not excessive. 

Motion to approve the application, one family home, the lot presents a hardship, positives out weigh negatives, subject to deed restriction as discussed: Hug;  Second by: Driscoll;  Roll call: Yes -

Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello No


NEW BUSINESS

None

MINUTES:

Minutes of July 7, 2010 Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski, Second by: Hug. Roll call: Unanimous

INVOICES:

Pashman, Stein – O/E for: $187.50; Trust for: $125, $412.50, $500, $518.75, $62.50, $287.50, $125

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $270, $40, $40, $62.50, $281.25, $343.75, $93.75, $93.75, $187.50, $187.50, $406.25, $437.50, $675

Burgis Assoc. – Trust for: $135, $303.75, $607.50

Bricker & Assoc – Trust for: $62.50

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

RESOLUTIONS

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 – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to approve: Buraszeski; Second by:  DiPiazza; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, 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- Approval Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, DiPiazza, Shirkey

Motion to approve: Buraszeski; Second by: Cartine; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, DiPiazza, Shirkey

ZC18-09 – Lachnicht, Cynthia – 10 Montville Ave. – B: 51.2, L: 5 – side setback and side setback combined; staircase variances – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to approve: Buraszeski; Second by: DiPiazza;  Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug,  DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

ZC18-03 Ptaszek - 21 Rockledge Rd. – B: 13, L: 22 – request for extension of approvals to 8/6/11 – Granted – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to approve: Buraszeski; Second by: Hug; 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 – Granted – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to approve: Buraszeski; Second by: Hug; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

OTHER BUSINESS

None

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 August 19, 2010.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.

Certified to 11/4/09 hearing

Certified to 5/5/10 hearing

Certified to 2/3/10 meeting

 
Last Updated ( Thursday, 02 September 2010 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack