Board of Adjustment Minutes 9-1-10 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 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:        Kevin Kain, Planner

                                Stanley Omland, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

Swearing in of Professionals

OLD BUSINESS

The following application was not present at time hearing started; the Board began the meeting with the Aliotta application:

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 - Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello   ACT BY: 9/2/10

NEW BUSINESS

ZC12-09 Aliotta, Guiseppe –121 Pine Brook Rd. – B: 127, L: 3 – variance for front setback 53.6’ where 58.5’ required; side yard 18.7’ where 22.81’ required for additions to single family residence - Notice Acceptable   ACT BY: 11/10/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Pat DeMarco, Esq.; Bruce Rigg, PE

Mr. DeMarco – Requesting variances for addition to rear of the property and front of property.  Front setback and side yard setback variances required.  There is also an existing non-conforming lot width. 

Bruce Rigg, PE – sworn – reviewed credentials

Proposing to renovate home from a ranch to a 2 story dwelling; with an addition to the front and rear of the existing building.  Propose a 3 car garage.  Existing home has an existing side yard of 19’; propose a side setback of 18.7’ where 22.81’ is required.  Decreasing side yard by about 4” from what exists.   Front setback proposed is 53.6’ where 58.5’ is required to the right of way.  The addition to the front is on the north side but most of the expansion is to the rear.  There will be an additional detention system installed.  Will make the drainage on site function better than it does today.  Variances requested due to existing location of the home on the property.   There is also an existing non-conforming lot width on the property.    All walls will stay under 6’ in height.  An as-built survey will be submitted upon framing to make sure of proper height.  Permeability tests will be done, seepage pits, etc.  Recommend that well service company check system but applicant can connect to township water system if required. 

Mr. Kain – Requested additional trees in front yard.  Mr. Riggs – Propose 3 trees to be removed; client will install 3 replacement evergreens in front yard.  Mr. Omland – Encouraged board to condition permeability tests prior to issuance of building permit.  Mr. Riggs – Agreed. 

Open to public – none

Mr. Cartine – Is there a requirement that they have to hook up to public water?  Mr. Omland – If the Township Water and Sewer Department requires it due to proximity to hook up then they would be required to do so.  Mr. Buraszeski – Concerned with the closeness of the addition to Pine Brook Rd.  Mr. Riggs – Most of the homes in the area are setback close to the road.    Mr. Driscoll – This house will be the closest to Pine Brook Road with the addition of 11’; if you went 5’ you would not be a variance.  Mr. Riggs – I do not know the architecture it may be a second story issue. 

Closed to Public

Mr. Omland – Are the setbacks on the zoning chart to the property line or the right of way line?  Mr. Riggs – From 25’ of the centerline of Pine Brook.  Normally it would be 50’ from property line but had to measure from the right of way.  Mr. Omland – Is the applicant going to dedicate the 16 ½’ right of way to the township?  Mr. Riggs – Did not plan on dedication.  Mr. Omland – The right of way line narrows in front of this property and should be dedicated to meet a more consistent right of way line along Pine Brook Road to clear title for ambiguity.  Mr. DeMarco – If required the applicant will comply. 

Mr. Moore – Would like more testimony on the architectural design as to why the front setback has to be that far forward.  Would recommend the applicant come back with more testimony on architecture.  Mr. Driscoll – Would like them to come back with an architect to see if they can eliminate a variance and if there is a valid reason why they need that setback.

Motion to carry with notice preserved to 11/3/10 for additional testimony made by Moore; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Unanimous   

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 - Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

ACT BY: 9/2/10

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

Mr. Schepis – Applicant is here for a planning variance and was last heard in April.  Property was created in 1950 and has no frontage on a public road.  Since the last hearing Mr. Caggiano achieved an easement with his adjoining neighbor to demonstrate that we have access to the property.

Frank Matarazzo, PE – previously sworn

                A4 – certification of easement

Mr. Matarazzo – Reviewed the easement for the Board.  There is a 15’ wide easement for access to Mr. Caggiano’s lot.  Propose to improve the existing gravel dirt road that was the travelled way of Hog Mountain Rd..  Have acquired from lot 33 an easement for access. 

                A5 – easement agreement between Mr. Katta (Lot 33) and Mr. Caggiano (Lot 32)

Mr. Matarazzo – Easement allows Mr. Caggiano access and improvement rights through the easement.  Easement runs from Taylortown Road to the far corner of Mr. Caggiano’s property.  Propose storm water improvements on the property that complies with zero runoff requirements.  Project complies with all other zoning requirements for the township.  Adequate emergency vehicle access is provided. 

Mr. Kain – you said the easement varies in width.  Mr. Matarazzo – 15’ access on north side of lot 33; most narrow point on lot 33 is 1’ between property line and existing wall; then widens out to 10’ along the rest of the way.  Maximum width of paved area to be 15’.  Mr. Omland – A-5 has 2 different sketches; one has 7 ½’ wide easement what lot is that one?  Mr. Matarazzo – Lot 32.  Mr. Omland – It appears you answered the concerns of the Board but we do not know where the driveway is within this easement; you are constrained by the wall and the wall of the dam; I am a little troubled with not seeing where the driveway lies within it to see if this can be built.  I think your plan needs to be updated to show your current easements.  Mr. Omland – We have not looked closely at the grading.  Mr. Marinello – Do you have enough information to make a decision?  Mr. Omland – The plan needs to reflect the easements as proposed; the easement must show that the easement is the barrier upon which no construction will go past.    Mr. Omland – What is the status of the DEP permits; may have effect on revisions to plan.  Mr. Matarazzo – The applicant has 2 applications pending with DEP; dam safety and wetlands.  The existing wall is to be changed to 5’ high and the water to be drained a little and DEP will not longer consider it to be a dam.  DEP is concerned that when the water level is dropped the wetlands may dry up.  They want it to be kept as a wetland and want the applicant to intercept a stream to keep the wetlands.  Mr. Omland – Changes to the plan due to DEP requirements may require changes to these plans on record.  Mr. Schepis – The applicant will comply with submission of revised plans.   Mr. Omland – Has there been a conclusion about the water line through Boonton.  Mr. Schepis – Yes, exhibit A3 shows an emergency access easement to Boonton and agree to a condition of the resolution that Boonton Township be allowed emergency access to the property.  Mr. Schepis – Agree to all conditions of Mr. Omland’s report. 

Mr. Omland – Plans need to be revised to show that the driveway can be built.  Mr. Ackerman – The safe access of the road is the main part of the application.  Mr. Omland – If they cannot show a 15’ driveway they would have to come back for a new variance.

Open to public – none

Mr. Buraszeski – Mr. Omland would a 14’ driveway be sufficient?  Mr. Omland – I don’t think loss of 1’ would be fatal but fire safety would have to be involved.  Mr. Omland asked the secretary if fire prevention reported.  Ms. Grogaard indicated that they had.  Mr. Ackerman – Mr. Omland you were concerned with piercing into the hard rock to drain the pond.  Mr. Omland – I spoke to Mr. Matarazzo about that tonight and I was going to ask the board to grant me the discretion to work with Mr. Matarazzo on the storm drainage system.  It is located in an area that I am not comfortable with.  They can drain into the pond without having a system in that critical area.  That may mitigate the necessity of the underground system. 

Mr. Cartine – Would like to have a complete plan in front of us.  Mr. Marinello – There was a lot of information dated today and submitted today and not sure if the board had enough time to review the information.  Discussion ensued on the concerns of the board as to whether or not the road can be installed or not.  Mr. Cartine – I cannot see where the road lies within the easements; would not like to leave it to chance; this is a serious part of the entire application.  Mr. Shirkey – Concerned with no DEP approvals prior to us viewing this application. 

Mr. Cartine – I want to see a survey showing easements and driveway drawn in.  Mr. Omland – At a better scale (20-30) showing the road; drainage relocated; field stakes so the board can walk the site; feedback from DEP prior to the next hearing. 

Carried with notice to 11/3/10 with an extension of time to act to 11/4/10


ZC10-10 Strumph,  Gail –20 Highland Ave – B: 40, L:18 – side yard setback; building coverage

2,215 s.f. vs 1,750 s.f.; impervious coverage 4,837 s.f. vs 3,500 s.f. variances for addition to single family home and deck - Notice Acceptable                                            ACT BY: 11/10/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Lawrence Bennett, Designer; Gail Strumph, Applicant

Mr. Bennett – Indicated that he was representing the applicant.

Mr. Marinello requested his background and asked what his expertise was in.  Mr. Bennett indicated he was the designer.  Mr. Marinello – The applicant must be represented by licensed professionals or they can represent themselves. Mr. Bennett – I have no licenses, I am a designer.  Mr. Marinello – You can be a witness for the Strumph’s.

Gail Strumph, applicant – sworn

Lawrence Bennett designer - sworn

                Exhibit A1 – photo board with google earth plan; floor plan; survey showing lot coverage calculations

Mr. Marinello – Can you testify as to your personal knowledge that the photo is as it is today.  Mr. Bennett – Yes.   Mr. Hug – He is not an architect how do we know that the plans are accurate?  Mr. Cartine – He can testify to what she is asking for, but we have to weigh it differently.  Mr. Hug – This is a very difficult application. 

Mr. Marinello – What variances are requested?  Mr. Bennett – Extending the structure back 3 ½’ and deck additional 14’.  The site is half the square footage of a normal R-15 lot.  There should have been variances granted in the past.  Asking to legalize a former condition that was not done properly by a contractor.  Only asking for additional 118 s.f. than what exists now.  Mr. Marinello – Can you describe the houses close to you?  Ms. Strumph – The other houses are close to the road and very close together.  The proposal is in character with what is in the neighborhood. 

Mr. Kain – What impact would this proposal have to your neighbors?  Ms. Strumph – We need more space and would like to stay in Montville.  No effect to the neighbors.  My back yard neighbor is 150’ away.  The 2 neighbors on the side I have discussed it with them and there are no issues.  No detriments to the neighbors.  Mr. Omland – Will the deck be built on top of the concrete patio?  Ms. Strumph – Yes. Mr. Omland – Will the deck go beyond the existing patio?  Ms. Strumph – Yes.  Mr. Omland – What is the method of measurement used to come up with the impervious coverage calculations.  Mr. Ackerman – There is no professional to attest to the accuracy of the impervious coverage.  Mr. Marinello – Do you have enough information to make a valid judgment?  Mr. Omland – I cannot validate the numbers on the plan since our calculations come up different from the applicant’s. 

Mr. Marinello – Requested certified plans with accurate measurements by a professional to show all variances to be submitted.  Mr. Cartine – Want information on increase of building coverage.  Dr. Kanoff – You need to testify more on the shape of the lot, minimizing factors to decrease variances, etc. 

Open to public for questions - none

Carried with notice to 11/3/10


ZC8-10 –Grassi, Rob – B: 94, L: 13 – 7 Hillcrest Rd. – building coverage variance 3,398 s.f. vs 2,775 s.f. allowed for addition/pool/decking         - Notice Acceptable            ACT BY: 11/10/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Layne Grassi, applicant; Thomas Hofmann, AIA

Layne Grassi, applicant – sworn

Thomas Hofmann, AIA – sworn – reviewed credentials

The house was built in the 50s’ or 60’s and is a ranch.  We looked at a 2nd story; house sits on ledge; has no basement; so best location was to go out to the right.  House and deck currently complies with zoning ordinance.

Mr. Kain – Can you give me more information on the garage and the house and as to how you came to what you’re proposing and how you tried to alleviate variances. Mr. Hofmann – The house is set to the left hand portion of the property.  Mr. Marinello – Is the latest plan 8/1/10?  Mr. Hofmann – Yes.  We added the pool so we would not have to come back twice.  The house is set back at a 35 degree angle.  Mr. Kain – Is there any potential configuration that would have reduced the variances requested.  Mr. Hofmann – Because of the angle we would have had to reconfigure the entire inside of the layout. 

Mr. Omland – The location of the site drainage; where is that being provided?  Mr. Hofmann – We were looking for the right side of the addition but because of the rock we may have option for above-ground detention and may have issue with soil; will work with engineering department because there is rock there.  Mr. Omland – Do you propose soil movement more than 500 c.y.?  Mr. Hofmann – No, minimal amount of soil disturbance.  Mr. Omland – Soil testing will be required.  Mr. Hofmann – I understand the zero runoff requirement, the water has to stay on the property.  Mr. Omland - Tree removal ?  Mr. Hofmann – No.

Mr. Omland – The design of the storm water can be worked out with the engineering department.     Mr. Marinello – Are the calculations correct for coverage on the plan.  Mr. Kain – After several runs at the calculations, it has been determined to be accurate.

Open to public

Dennis Quimby – 10 Pomona Ave. – Sworn

Concerned with drainage onto our property. 

Mr. Hofmann – Building coverage 3,398 s.f. requested where 2,775 s.f. proposed. Previous number on plan of 3,850 s.f. included the water surface of the pool. 

Mr. Hug – Major concern with runoff to the neighboring property.   Mr. Omland – The drainage proposed on the plan will not work.  Anything proposed has to be a distance away from their house. You can collect the roof water with gutters to piping and dispose of it through sheet flow away from the neighboring property.  Do not want a single drywell like proposed.  Actual addition is 723 s.f.  I have same concerns as the neighbor.  Mr. Omland – The neighbor already has wet back yard and basement today, we just have to make sure it does not get worse.  Will employ the best technology we have without taking expense into consideration to make sure it will not be worse than current conditions.  Ms. Grassi – We are planning on putting a gutter system on the side of the garage.  It is not just our home that drains onto the neighbor’s property.  Mr. Omland – Entire roof or segment?  Ms. Grassi – Only by garage.  Mr. Omland – If it can be guttered and captured elsewhere it will help the neighbors concern. 

Closed to public


Mr., Cartine – This is a large building addition; there is a circular driveway, a pool is proposed.  Large increase in building coverage.  Mr. Buraszeski – Structure cannot hold a 2nd story addition, would be an enhancement to the community. 

Motion to approve the application, soil testing required, gutter system to be installed, collection system to be installed, revised plans to be submitted to provide accurate building coverage calculations made by: Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski;  Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Kanoff, Moore; No – Cartine,  Marinello

NOTE: Mr. Hug stepped down

ZC11-10 –Brittain & Foster – B: 52.02, L: 15 – 61 River Rd   - variance front setback of 40.2’ vs 45’ & Building Coverage of 3,160 s.f. vs. 2,587 s.f. for 2nd story addition/garage expansion/front

porch addition - Notice Acceptable    ACT BY: 11/17/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Sandy Brittain, applicant; Victor Aleksandro, AIA

Ms. Brittain, applicant – sworn

Want to put a 2nd story on the house.  Want to put a porch on the front that extends 4’ over the steps to be supported by columns.  Want to increase the size of the 2 car garage since they are too narrow to get the vehicles in.  Will remain as a 2 car but would have doors with proper width. 

Victor Aleksandro, AIA – sworn

Addition is 465 s.f.  The front setback increased by 4’, which is depth of front porch, requesting 40.2’ where 45’ required; building coverage request of 3,160 s.f. where 2,587 s.f. allowed.

Mr. Kain – I would prefer to see 2 doors for garage but shrink the size of the garages smaller.  You should consider how much you can reduce to minimize the variance requested.  Mr. Omland – Would applicant consent to the installation of a drywell and provide zero increase on runoff?  Ms. Brittain – Is there other options?  Mr. Marinello – You can come back at another hearing with reduced  garage size plans, review ordinance as to pavers and determine if variance would still be required.

Open to public for questions - none

Carried with notice to 11/3/10

NOTE: Mr. Hug returned

MINUTES:

Minutes of August 4, 2010 Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Shirkey, Marinello

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

INVOICES:

Pashman, Stein – O/E for: $312.50; Trust for: $1,393.75, $612.50

Omland Engineering – Trust for:  $33.75, $156.25, $93.75, $93.75, $62.50, $281.25, $281.25, $125, $312.50, $540, $500, $312.50, $281.25, $218.75, $156.25

Burgis Assoc – Trust for: $250, $156.25, $250, $375, $593.75, $187.50, $218.75, $93.75, $218.75, $125, $312.50, $250, $843.75, $1,125.00, $62.50, $562.50, $250, $250, $62.50, $281.25, $156.25, $156.25

Anderson & Denzler- Trust for: $138, $354.40

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


RESOLUTIONS

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 and equipment cabinets and variance for side setback of 12’ vs 50’ – Approval Resolution - Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello      

Mr. Marinello – We have a resolution with comments by our engineer.  Mr. Ackerman – The law says we have to adopt a resolution within 45 days.  I spoke with the applicant’s attorney and he indicates that his only recourse is to go to court which would take longer than the time when the Board would adopt.  Mr. Ackerman will revise the proposed resolution to include the Board Engineer comments and have it presented for adoption as amended at the next meeting.

The board took no action on the above resolution.  Moved to the following agenda.

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.  – Approval Resolution - Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello

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

OTHER BUSINESS

ZC21-08 Khalil – 32 Pine Brook Rd – B: 117, L: 3 – dismiss without prejudice

Motion to dismiss: Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski;  Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

ZC05-06 Lazo - B: 111, L: 12  - 32 Alpine Rd – request for extension to August 1, 2011

Mr. Kain – No changes to the zoning in this area.  Mr. Buraszeski – Recommend no further extensions but up to future board.

Motion to grant extension for one year recommend to future board that no further extensions be granted: Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski;  Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Discussed the dinner for the retirees and if board members wished to have tables together.

Mr. Hug – Any recommendation on permeable concrete.  Mr. Omland – There is a project in Madison that seems to be working but requires maintenance.  It is not in our ordinance now.  You may want to make a recommendation to planning board for 50% credit instead of 20%.  The planning board authors the ordinances and it gets sent to the township committee.  Mr. Marinello – There would be a voluminous amount of variances reduced by allowing this to be part of the ordinance.  Mr. Hug – I want to see it.  Mr. Daughtry suggested that a report from the board professionals to the planning board would be a start.  Mr. Omland – Aesthetically, I do not like it.  Mr. Omland – If not maintained properly it will not work as required. 

Mr. Hug – We have asked in the past how many times an applicant can postpone an application?  Mr. Omland - There is no set policy.  Every town has docket control set differently by different people.  Mr. Kain – Same.    Mr. Marinello –What do other towns do as it relates to variances being required for


unimproved roads.  Mr. Hug asked about amending the ordinance to remove decks as coverage.  Discussion ensued.

CORRESPONDENCE

None

There being no further business the board unanimously adjourned.

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of October 6, 2010.

_______________________________________

Jane Grogaard, Secretary

 

Last Updated ( Thursday, 14 October 2010 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack