Board of Adjustment Minutes 10-6-10 Print E-mail




Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting


Stated for the record.


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:        Joseph Burgis, Planner

                                Stanley Omland, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.



Stated for the record


Swearing in of Professionals



The following application was carried with new notice required to 12/1/10:

***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:12/2/10


ZSPP/FC28-08-13-10 Holiday at Montville – 29 Vreeland Ave. – B: 52.03, L: 19, 21 & 22 – site plan & variances - Notice Acceptable    ACT BY: 12/30/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Robert Gannon, Applicant; Marc Walker, PE, Engineer - Sworn; Liz Buckley, PP, Planner

Mr. Schepis, attorney for applicant, gave overview of application.  Bifurcated application having received 2009 approval of use variance for Briar Hill at Montville, currently before board for site plan approval.  Mr. Marinello raised concerns about having Ms. Buckley testify since board did not have chance to review her resume.  Mr. Cartine objected to accepting Ms. Buckley as an expert witness.  She was not accepted as an expert due to completeness item not submitted.

Mr. Marc Walker, PE – sworn - was accepted as an expert witness. 


Exhibit A1 - 2/16/09 revision date Sept 14, 2010 - colorized rendering

Exhibit A2 is exhibit with larger surrounding area.  Shows Longview Estates and other single family dwellings.  Includes municipal boundary line. 

Mr. Walker indicates that site plan was submitted as part of the use variance application.  Separation of buildings increased from 10 to 12 feet necessitated shifting plans around.  Maintained 31 units by providing duplexes that contain 6 one bedroom units.  Eliminated three dwellings and added to island.  Provide sidewalks on both sides and also gazebo as amenity.  Report from traffic safety officer recommended loop from two-way to one-way traffic pattern.  Testified that plans comply.  Originally 28 foot wide roadway, reduced to 24 feet due to one way movement of traffic.  Maximum slope is 8.6% for a short distance; 80% of roadway is 5% or less which means the roadway is relatively flat.  Grading techniques to keep roadway flat. Different types of units including garage under units; walk-out basement units and standard at-grade units.  Each has deck or patio. 112 parking spaces are provided where 41 are required.  On street parking along right hand side of roadway is proposed.  Testified that compliant with stormwater management.  Overflow from piping flows into infiltration basins.  Proposed soil movement for project subject of separate application. 

Exhibit A3 was submitted for entrance pillar detail. 

Design waiver is requested for location of sign in sight triangle.  Rationale is for safety purposes.   Mr. Walker’s expert opinion is that condition is safe.  Sign is 33 feet from edge of pavement and AASHTO sight triangle requirement is defined by sight lines which is 14 ½ feet drivers eye back from edge of pavement and 300 feet out.  Testimony is that requirement is met.  Traffic safety officer had no comments. 

RSIS de minimis exception required for one-way street since the standard is not recognized or rather the RSIS is silent as to this.  28 feet is the standard and is not adjusted for a one-way street.  20 to 21 feet is standard for aisle width; 24 feet is proposed in this application. 

Burgis memo – Oct 1 2010.  Recommends meeting at the municipal building with applicant to discuss landscaping.  Mr. Marinello wishes to have resolved prior to moving forward.  Will not be “subject to.” 

Omland memo – Oct 5 2010.  Mr. Omland highlighted Item 2 under site plan – zero tolerance of separation of buildings reduced by cultured stone.  Question to applicant: Will the stone wrap around or end at building edge?  Mr. Walker noted that the ordinance allows certain encroachments.    Mr. Marinello indicated this is an exceptional use and the encroachment would necessitate a variance.

Mr. Omland had question regarding how will Vreeland detention basins appear.  Mr. Walker’s answer: they are below grade and landscaping will shield.  Mr. Omland had a concern that the back side of retaining wall may be visible.  Mr. Walker indicated that they will comply however will not fully screen the retaining wall, but will make sure that outlet structures will be fully screened. 

Mr. Schepis indicated that individual lots are not proposed; the lines on the plans are unit limit lines, not subdivisions lines.  It is a condo project and not fee simple.  Residents own interior of the unit only.  Mr. Burgis raised concerns about the alteration of landscape plan due to “unit limit lines” allowing limited gardening.  Tabled by chair to discuss prior to next hearing.   Mr. Omland raised concerns about fencing for vegetable garden. 

Mr. Omland recommended that the board consider reducing width of loop.  He urged applicant to comply with RSIS with putting forth proofs.  Mr. Walker agreed to do that.  Mr. Omland raised issue that regulation prohibits private streets.  Mr. Walker indicated that this is not applicable to site plan / condo; meant for subdivision.  Mr. Burgis indicated that he will look into. 

Open to public for this witness


Alexandra Owens Boonton 15 Greenbrier - Sworn.  Concerned about density and landscaping.  Privacy fence and noise buffer is requested.  Her well is 25 feet from boundary.  What is the impact from construction?

Dan Shark 76 Jessie – Sworn.  Concerned about his residence located at bottom of 35 foot grade of hill.  Question – will a partition be constructed or will they be looking down into site?  Run-off concerns. 

John Stretavsai – Sworn - representing homeowners Mr. and Mrs Neery 7 Greenbrier – Sworn.  Requested clarification and information regarding easement adjacent to Blair Lane.  The plans indicated macadam to be removed and planted.  Also asked what is goal with power lines? 

Nick Masone – Sworn – 74 Jessie in Longview.  Concerned because property directly in rear.  Concerned about variance for 20 feet and concerned about run-off.

Closed to public for this witness

Mr. Cartine – Requests one way loop testimony as to other developments such as Long View.  Width specifically.  Why duplexes v. single unit?  Pillars – why need for such a small development?  Density issue – with respect to site plan do we have latitude with respect to number of units.  Why this number?  Raised concerns about three units in circle. 

Dr. Kanoff – Has issues with the project looking down at property to rear.

Mr. Hug – Addressed to Mr. Omland – upgrade with pavers, but negative comments with regard to stone base.  Seems contradictory recommendation. 

Mr. Marinello - Three story consideration; other examples in Township that used garage parking as part of parking count; planner or applicant  why “at” Montville; signage and sight triangle testimony – imperative because reluctant to grant variances for signs in sight triangles. 

Mr. Buraszeski - Why is the ROW not green on illustrative plan?  Options for two units that share common driveway?

Mr. Driscoll – Would like to know which trees are to be removed.

Mr. Moore – Asked for clarification on unit 6

Mr. DiPiazza – Raised concerns about road and safety of 24 v. 28 feet width and backing out into road or turnaround required in single family developments

Mr. Shirkey – Needs testimony as to need for entrance pillars. Cultured stone discussion pertaining to intrusion into side yard.  A/C units on side.  Fully exposed?  Walk out units thought not incorporated  - how much is soil movement due to cuts. Sight triangles and effect on front entranceway.  In front of units 20 and 21 can make this section of the road narrower.  Actual number of units possible per site. Clarification on different styles of units proposed.

Input requested by Chair from counsel and professionals regarding letter from Boonton Township engineer. 

Closed to public

Mr. Schepis requested a special hearing.  Chair indicated it will be looked into.

Carried with notice to 12/1/10 hearing.   

ZSOIL14-10 Holiday at Montville – 29 Vreeland Ave - B: 52.03, L: 19, 21 & 22 – soil movement - Notice Acceptable

Carried with notice to 12/1/10 hearing. 

ZSOIL5-10 Lodhi – B: 21.01, L: 35.04 – 10 Old Ln. – soil movement - Notice Acceptable

Present on behalf of the applicant: Shahid Lodhi, Applicant

James Walzer, Esq attorney in Boonton representing soil movement application for Lodhi

Frank Mattarazzo PE 12 Crystal Drive Fairfield NJ.  Engineer of record on variance application. Sworn

Old Lane – vacant lot currently; approved by Zoning Board for construction of single family dwelling.  Steep slope disturbance on property.  2 retaining walls in front; 2 walls in rear.  Property slopes south to Old Lane. Underground detention system.  Proposes septic system in front of house.  Approved by board of health.  Soil erosion approval from Morris County received.  Sequence of construction to address stormwater run-off concerns.  Suggestions that storm sewer be installed first.  Catch basin at the end of driveway.  Soil erosion measures to be installed first.

Mr. Marinello asked what was the distance from property in question to Serafin Way.  Omland’s letter proposed berm.  Redirect stormwater difficult to access so will move closer to wall and easier to construct.  Certification letters for inspections.  Time period of biweekly is recommended by Mr. Mattarazzo.  All improvements in ROW are to be done in the first stage of development.  Sheet 1 of 3 list conditions from Omland’s letter.  Soil erosion measures installed, rough grading of site, excavation for building, install detention system, construct wall, septic, retaining wall, final grading and paving of driveway. Depiction of trees on map.  12 inches in diameter or greater at breast height located and depicted on plan. 

Mr. Burgis – no questions.

Mr. Omland – berm relocation intention is to push water to westerly property line.  Current location pushes onto neighbor.  Dropping berm to top of wall – does this solve issue?  Berm must keep water on subject property and not on neighborly property.  Is there an area on site to stock pile top soil?  Answer from Mr. Mattarazzo - Yes, where proposed septic system.  Does excavation occur within 20 ft of property line?  Mr. Mattarazzo - Yes, requires proofs.  Arising due to grading of proposed driveway.  Locating on most easterly side of property.  “S” turn required to get grade up to proposed garage.  10 feet on westerly property line on easterly property line there is more fill than excavation due to retaining wall location.  12 ft off the line – proposed retaining wall.  Ordinance does not regulate fill.  Which trees will be affected?  Answer from Mr. Mattarazzo -  1 tree affected by driveway. Type of wall is modular block without geogrid. Soil movement concerns between 7:30 to 4:30 and compress during school hours. 

Mr. DiPiazza – impact on tree – 12 inch tree – root system impacted?

Mr. Driscoll – concerned about trees on neighbor’s property to left

Mr. Ackerman Esq - indicates route needed to be depicted

Mr. Hug – Do you have permission to dump soil on adjacent property?  Response: Site on Serafin is a developer with soil permit approval for import of soil.  Berm – water to go where?  Retention basins?  Off site stormwater divert away from detention system.  Discharge into Old Lane.  Approval and resolution on that.

Dr. Kanoff - soil movement excessive?  Answer: Over 500 cubic yards Township Engineer loses control and kicks to board.  That is why Zoning Board purview.

Mr. Cartine – Needs more information on route.  Not comfortable with engineering testimony “I think” is not an acceptable answer from witness.  Therefore cannot rely on testimony.  Presentation inadequate for soil movement. 

Public portion opened.

Bill Scalzitti - 15 Old Lane - Sworn.  Questions to board – on Old Lane from proposed site to dump site steep curve and difficult to see.  Narrow street.  Inspections weekly or biweekly?.  Original proposal is weekly.  Proper drainage is vital.  Main concern.  Protect neighbors.  Tree removal and size of caliper on property.

Public portion closed.

Discussion and motion.  Approve, deny or not enough information.

Mr. Marinello, Chair – Denial requires re-application of soil movement permit. 

Mr. Cartine needs more information.  Makes motion to deny for soil movement.  Mr. Hug asks reasoning.  Answer from Mr. Cartine - No route or safety of route.  Expert did not provide sufficient testimony. Mr. Marinello - What time do school buses pass? How wide is the paved portion of the road? Does it narrow along the route of the proposed soil movement? Are there any large trees or vegetation encroaching on the road that would make it difficult for trucks to pass?

Mr. Buraszeski – Table give applicant to come back and improve presentation. 

Dr.  Kanoff seconds motion to deny.  All yes in favor to deny – application denied. 

Motion to deny:   Cartine due to insufficient information about route.              

Second by:  Kanoff

Roll call:  Yes- Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello


Note: Dr. Kanoff stepped down on the following application:


ZC12-10 Schell, Frank  –14 Kirkbride Terr. – B: 31, L: 18.2 – rear setback 36’ vs 50’ for deck - Notice Acceptable   ACT BY: 1/15/11

Present on behalf of the applicant: Frank Schell, applicant


Mr. Schell provided testimony that the unusual shaped lot makes it difficult to conform.  Deck is 14 feet at widest point.  Setback of 36 feet.  Lot on Jackonville Rd. Lot 19 600 feet parallels property.  Entirely wooded.  Distance to nearest structure well over 200 feet.

Ran through positive and negative criteria vis a vis Mr. Burgis comments.  Mr. Burgis states that the applicant has met necessary criteria. 

Open public portion. – none - closed

Dr. Kanoff - speaks in favor of application. 

Mr. Cartine - question.  Understands hardship due to shape of property.  What is need for 20 feet? Seems like a large deck requesting variance for.  Answer: Slider doors built to accommodate deck. 

Motion to approve:   Hug due to odd shaped lot; hardship.  Deck is not too large for request.  Surrounded by woods and would not impact neighbors negatively.

Second by:  DiPiazza

Roll call:  Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Cartine; No - Marinello

Dr. Kanoff returned.


ZC15-10 Mazzaccaro, Thomas  –4 Moore Rd. – B: 51, L: 64 – variance for front setback on corner lot garage addition - Notice Acceptable  ACT BY: 1/17/11

Present on behalf of the applicant: Thomas Mazzaccaro, applicant - Sworn

Mr. Mazzaccaro represented that the property is .5 acres with 197 feet of frontage.  Moore Road is a dead end street.  The property is flat without topographic changes.  Driveway is existing.  The proposed construction will not encroach any farther into front yard.  The original structure built by applicant in 1973.  At the time, the structure met the required setback of R27 zone. Subsequent changes to the zone rendered structure non-conforming. An addition in any other direction would create another non-conforming condition.  Applicant noted that the home adjacent was granted variance same type of construction of garage addition.

Applicant stated that granting of variance would be consistent with other homes in neighborhood.  Other similar variances granted in the neighborhood.  Property in question is a corner lot and is constrained. 

No comment was provided by Township Engineer.

Mr. Burgis – Stated that in his opinion the statutory burden was met therefore the variance could be granted.

Mr. Omland –Existing impervious built upon so no additional run-off.  1-2 feet less than existing.  No closer to street than existing home. 

Open to public – none - Closed

Dr Kanoff – Asked if a turnaround is required.  Response:  Not needed according to Mr. Omland.

Motion to approve:  Dr. Kanoff made a motion to approve since the condition will not be worsened - condition is a pre-existing non-conforming structure – it will blend in with the neighborhood, and no detrimental effects will result from the grant of the variance.

Second by:  Mr. Driscoll

Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello


ZC17-10 Wagner, Lester  –6 Cherokee Ct. – B: 15.02, L: 8 – variance for front setback of 38/95’ where 45’ is required for front porch - Notice Acceptable            ACT BY: 1/17/11

Present on behalf of the applicant: Lester Wagner, applicant - Sworn

Mr. Wagner – Testified that he, applicant, is replacing front steps that have crumbled and add open front porch, which triggers variance as noticed.  Location of lot is at end of cul-de-sac; frontage curved. 

Testimony was that there will be no detriment to the neighborhood due to the improvement proposed, which will actually add to the aesthetics of the neighborhood.  

Exhibit A-1 is architectural plans by Lawrence Korinda architect dated Sept 8, 2010

Mr. Burgis – Needs to review architectural plans.  Requested testimony as to how this enhanced aesthetics of building.  Mr. Wagner described the porch as adding depth to residence.

Testimony was given with respect to c(2) variance relief by Mr. Burgis and his opinion the statutory criteria was met.   Mr. Omland had no comments

Mr. Buraszeski – Can the applicant reduce depth of porch?  Response:  Mr. Wagner stated he experimented with different widths, but felt eight (8) feet would give enough depth to put out chairs in summer. 

Mr. Cartine – Stated that while this was not a classic hardship case due to the aesthetic improvement based on good architectural design justified making the porch wider and larger.  He stated that 8 feet is preferred over 4 feet.  Therefore c(2) statutory is appropriate.

Open to the public – none - closed

Mr. Marinello – Stated that his house “sets the tone” for appearance of block.

Open air porch and will be removed if not used as intended. 

Motion to approve: Cartine due to aesthetic improvement and enhancement of neighborhood character.    

Second by: Hug

Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey,

No - Marinello



Minutes of September 1, 2010 Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski

Second by:   Driscoll

Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello



Pashman, Stein – Trust for: $443.75, $125

Burgis Assoc – Trust for: $62.50

Omland Engineering - Trust for: $93.75, $375; $125

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $897

Motion to adopt made by: Kanoff

Second by: Driscoll

Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello


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      

Motion to approve made by:  Mr. Buraszeski

Second by: Mr. Hug

Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

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

Applicant requested a number of changes to the resolution.  Board voted to adopt resolution as-is.

Motion to approve made by:  Hug

Second by:  Driscoll

Roll call:  Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Kanoff, Moore


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

Motion to approve made by: Buraszeski

Second by:  Driscoll

Roll call:   Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello


Discussion re: Board Secretary

Board appointed Jane Grogaard as Recording Secretary and Assistant Secretary to the Board of Adjustment and Meghan Hunscher, PP as Secretary to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Mr. Art Daugherty, liaison from the Township Committee, presented a concern on behalf of a resident about the fence ordinance that prohibits chain link fences.  He also discussed High School outreach regarding civic studies.  Students should be attending ZBOA hearings.  Draft ordinance for wireless towers is goal of Township Committee to introduce ordinance November 1, 2010.

Mr. Marinello – Requested resumes and feedback prior to January hearing to replace professionals.

Mr. Driscoll – Report on PB meeting - minutes have not been approved.  The majority of the hearing was pertaining to Rails steakhouse.


ZD28-08 Holiday at Montville – 29 Vreeland Ave. – B: 52.03, L: 19, 21 & 22 – extension of approvals request to 10/7/11

Motion to approve:  Driscoll

Second by: Buraszeski

Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

There being no further business the board unanimously adjourned at 10:30 p.m.  Mr. Hug made motion and Mr. Cartine seconded. 

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of November 3, 2010.


Meghan Hunscher, Principal Planner

Certified to 11/4/09 hearing


Last Updated ( Thursday, 04 November 2010 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack