|
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
|
