ZONING BOARD OF
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2010
Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated for the record.
Moore –Present Thomas Buraszeski – Present
Donald Kanoff – Present James
Marinello – Present
Deane Driscoll – Present Carl DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present
Cartine–Present Kenneth Shirkey
(Alt #2) – Present
Hug – Present
Also Present: Kevin Kain, Planner
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
Swearing in of Professionals
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
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
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 –
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 –
Lawrence Bennett designer -
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
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
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
Carried with notice to
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
on behalf of the applicant: Layne Grassi, applicant; Thomas Hofmann, AIA
Layne Grassi, applicant –
Thomas Hofmann, AIA – sworn –
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. –
Concerned with drainage onto
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
addition - Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 11/17/10
on behalf of the applicant: Sandy Brittain, applicant; Victor Aleksandro, AIA
Ms. Brittain, applicant –
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 –
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
Carried with notice to
NOTE: Mr. Hug returned
Minutes of August 4, 2010
Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Shirkey, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by:
Buraszeski, Second by: Hug. Roll call: Unanimous
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,
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
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
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
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
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