|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 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: Joseph Burgis, Planner
Charles Thomas, PE
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
Swearing in of Professionals
Mr. Marinello - Two of our
members will not be looking for re-appointment next year, Mr. DiPiazza and Mr.
Cartine. We appreciate their
contributions to the Board. Mr. Cartine
was vice chair for many years and has had an exemplary attendance record.
OLD BUSINESS
ZC10-10
Strumph, Gail –20 Highland Ave – B: 40, L:18 –
side yard setback 4.9’ (existing/proposed) where 13.8’ required; building
coverage 1,921.91 s.f. vs 1,750 s.f. allowed; impervious coverage 4,686.36 s.f.
vs 3,500 s.f. (4,586.56 s.f. existing); for addition to single family home and
deck – carried
with notice from 9/1/10– Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza,
Shirkey, Marinello ACT BY: 12/2/10
Present on behalf of the applicant: Gail Strumph, applicant; Larry Bennett,
Designer; Howard Raabe, AIP
Howard Raabe, AIP - sworn
Seeking variance for side setback, impervious coverage and building
coverage. It is a modest addition. Existing non-conforming side yard of 4.9’ and
wish to increase the existing non-conformity by the 2nd floor addidtion and the
deck will be in the setback also. This
property predates zoning. We made the
additions as minimal as possible. Mr.
Burgis - Can you talk about the physical features of the site. Mr Raabe - This lot is undersized for the
zone; was built in the early 1900s and pre dates the zoning requirements. It is a narrow lot and half the size of the
zone requirements. Very little can be
built on this property without a variance.
8 houses in the immediate area have non-conforming side yard
setbacks. Mr. Thomas - Would like to see
the drainage system shown on the plan. If you can provide a statement that the
system is functioning at this time, since it is a minimal amount of impervious
coverage, and that the owner will take measures if there is an issue then that
should be fine. Mr. Raabe - Agreed.
Open to public - none
Mr. Cartine - Is there a way to reduce the size of the driveway due to the
excessive impervious coverage. The
driveway seems wide and it would be nice to improve some things while others
are being made worse. Mr. Raabe - There
is a concrete pad next to the garage that we will be willing to remove which is
larger than what we are adding. Mr. Cartine
- That would be a start. Mr. Cartine -
The size of the deck is 14’x24’ which is large.
Mr. Raabe - There is a concrete pad that we are building the deck over. Dr. Kanoff
- Can the deck be reduced to reduce the building coverage. Mr. Marinello - Concerned with the visual
effect on the neighboring property since the setback is 4.9’ and they are going
up. Mr. Buraszeski - Can you reduce the deck from 14’ to 12’ to have less of an
impact on the neighboring property. Mr.
Shirkey - Can you remove the concrete under the deck so at least it percs down
through the deck. The side walkway is
not servicing anything can that be removed.
Mr. Raabe - There is a side door.
Mr. Marinello - You have an option to move forward or come back in a month
to look at the board comments. Mr. Raabe
- We will remove the concrete patio, remove concrete under deck and will put in
6’ plantings near neighboring property, and walkway past the doorway.
Mr. Cartine - Lot is undersized and
believe the deck is still large.
Motion to approve the
application, concrete pad by garage to be removed, sidewalk beyond side door to
be removed, concrete under deck to be removed, plantings to be installed,
certification of storm water required, limited lot, undersized, narrow,
hardship to do any improvements on this lot made by: Cartine;
Second by: Driscoll; Roll
call: Yes – Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Moore, No - Marinello
ZC16-10
Kaner, Suzanne –12 Foremost Mountain Rd. – B: 130,
L: 14 – variance - detached garage
construction variance required for existing lot size; existing depth of
measurement; existing lot width; existing impervious coverage; proposed
accessory structure setback rear yard of 17.64’ where 20’ required; proposed
side yard 7.87’ where 20’ required; accessory structure height 22.16’ where 14’
allowed - Notice Acceptiable - ACT BY: 2/11/11
Present on behalf of the applicant: Suzanne Kaner; Jacob Soloman, AIA
Jacob Soloman, AIA - sworn
Reviewed the site for the Board.
Variances requested are for construction of a detached garage. The applicant is requesting variances for
existing lot size; existing depth of measurement; existing lot width; existing
impervious coverage; proposed accessory structure setback rear yard of 17.64’
where 20’ required; proposed side yard 7.87’ where 20’ required; accessory
structure height 22.16’ where 14’ allowed.
Lot is narrow. Lot slopes down
toward the garage. Mr. Burgis - Need
testimony on rear setback. Mr. Soloman -
The foundation of the garage slab is existing and was there when they bought
the house. It would be extensive work to
relocate the entire garage. Mr. Soloman
- Tried to keep a certain architectural look to the garage. The height in the garage is actually 9’ and
the remainder is storage. Mr. Thomas -
Why do you need a 60 amp service to this garage. Mr. Soloman - Its minimal service for
lighting and battery chargers. Mr.
Shirkey - If you did the same design but move it 90 degrees you could meet the
14’.
Mr. Hug - Seems like everything is being created by an existing
foundation. If they poured a new
foundation they may not need any variances.
Mr. Cartine - There is alot of room on this lot where they can move this
structure to minimize variances requested.
Why in this location when you have a big enough yard. Mr. Marinello - Do you need another month to go
over your plans and see if you can make changes. Mr. Buraszeski - There is a steep slope on
this property.
Mr. Raabe - I conferred with my client.
Willing to lower the ridge height and move the garage forward 3’ to
eliminate the rear setback but still want the side setback. Mr. Marinello - Can come back in January with
notice preserved. Mr. Soloman - Can do
18’. Discussion ensued on height
calculations for the garage. Mr. Burgis
- I would like to see the plans.
The application was carried with notice to 1/5/11
Mr. Hug - stepped down for the following application
ZC9-10
Wang, Lichen –68 Horsenck Rd. – B: 125.7, L: 32 – variance for front setback of 31’
where 50’ required for front porch addition – Notice Acceptiable - ACT BY; 2/19/11
Present on behalf of the applicant: May Wong and LiChen Wang, applicant
May Wong - sworn
We purchased this house this year.
The previous owner put a small canopy over the front steps and we could
not get a CO because it was in variance.
To close on time we removed the canopy and filed the variance to put it
back up.
A1 - photos of house with and without canopy
Ms. Wong - The canopy can keep visitors out of rain and snow. Want small roof, not enclosing porch. 66 Horseneck Rd. has a canopy. It is more aesthetically pleasing with the
canopy. It also adds balance to the
house.
Mr. Marinello - Can you make a smaller canopy. Ms. Wong - Just covers front porch. Mr. Driscoll - In line with neighboring
properties.
Open to public - none - closed
Motion to approve the
application, it blends into the neighborhood, safety issue, enhances purpose of
the zoning ordinance, no detriment to
zone plan, porch to be kept open made by: Kanoff; Second by: Cartine; Roll
call: Yes – Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
Mr.
Hug returns
2
minute break
Mr.
Marinello - stepped down for the following application and Mr. Buraszeski
chaired the meeting.
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
– first hearing 11/4/09 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine,
Hug, Kanoff[1], Moore,
DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello – New Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 12/1/10
Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; David Egarian, PE
Mr. Schepis - The plans have been revised to indicate existing and proposed
conditions as well as conditions that were not granted previous approvals.
A7 - plan showing
proposed, previously permitted and construction not approved or granted dated
11/29/10
David Egarian, PE - previously sworn
We have shown on this plan fencing around the tennis court that was
approved in 2002. Fencing around paddle board court that was approved in
2001. 2006 work to banquet hall, parking
by tennis courts. Since 2006
construction by club without municipal approvals shown on following exhibits.
A8 - site plan for
lake valhalla club depicts south side of property and improvments not approved
by municipality south side
A9 - site plan for
lake valhalla club depicts north side of property and improvments not approved
by municipality
Mr. Egarian - Showing additional parking by baseball field and tennis
court. Parking on existing surfaces,
would be used for overflow parking. No
marked out parking stalls, would lay additional gravel down. Trying to reduce congestion on existing
streets. There was a paved area behind
the club house that was expanded. There
was 2-3 additional paved areas for outdoor BBQ and picnic areas. Down by the mainenance shed there was a paver
patio installed. There is a net increase
of 1,539 s.f. impervious coverage bringing us up to 125,594 s.f. impervious
coverage. Proposal - removed outdoor
storage; propose 4’ fence to screen off back of maintenance building; extending
parking along paddle ball courts; additional lighting proposed; propose parking
in the Glen for overflow parking through a gate on an existing gravel road with
exisitng lighting to allow for 42 additional spaces. Propose small retaining wall along tennis
courts and parking. Propose more pavers
in an area which was formerly a sidewalk.
4 additional spaces by the boat
dock. Modifying existing cottage to
bathrooms with outdoor shower. Mr. Hug -
Seems a long way from the water. Mr.
Schepis - The cottage is centrally located as far as the softball field, tennis
courts and volley ball courts are located.
Mr. Egarian - Propose to eliminate the showers outside the banquet
hall. Parking by softball fields would
only be used during certain holidays for overflow parking and there are no
lights proposed in that area. 9 additional
lights proposed on site.
Mr. Egarian - reviewed floor plan for cottage. Looking to build 2 new bathrooms under the
existing roof area at the pavillion.
Looking to build a 5’x5’ guard station to be built at the horse
shoe. The architectural style fits well
with the club house. Improvements to the
clubhouse itself: vestibule to be enclosed wrap around stairs with couple of
doors to be installed; upstairs was finished and fitted out but never converted
to office space; propose offices; powder room; conference room and additonal
offices. The building is not getting
bigger. Mr. Schepis – The south side of
the building was previously approved as storage only and they want to change it
to office.
Mr. Schepis - The proposed lighting for the volley ball courts have been
withdrawn. Requesting a hoistable net for this area. Mr. Egarian - The volley ball courts have a
post and rail fence along Vista Rd. with additional landscaping screening that
was intalled. Wish to install 4 - 10’
poles to hoist a net so ball will not go
into Vista Road. The proposed improvements will greatly relieve the parking
situation for the entire area. Mr. Hug -
Additional bathrooms? Mr. Egarian - Port
A Potty to be by ball field and by pavillion.
Mr. Schepis - No need for port a potty if 2 bathroom areas were
approved.
Mr. Burgis - I have 16 items in my report dated 11/22/10 can you go through
them to clarify the record.
Mr. Egarian - 2 a and 2 b proposed;
2 c existing but not approved; 2 d existing not approved; 2 e proposed;
2 f proposed; 2 g proposed; 2 h existing not approved; 2 i existing but not
approved; 2 j proposed; 2 k existing but not approved; 2 l, m, n, o, and p proposed;
2 q existing not approved.
Mr. Egarian - Existing propane tanks to be moved to gain access to parking
spaces. Mr. Burgis - Will you have
testimony from a traffic expert? Mr.
Schepis - All on site did not see the need.
Mr. DiPiazza - 214 spots is alot.
Mr. Schepis - We can get a traffic engineer if the board requires. Mr. Buraszeski - Yes.
Open to public
Josh Mann, Esq. - representing a group of neighbors
The proposed parking on the ball field area would only be for major
events? Mr. Egarian - Yes. Mr. Mann - No food or refrigerators in
cottage? Mr. Egarian - Yes. Mr. Mann - Copy of letter dated 11/19/10 from
President of Lake Valhalla Club indicates warming kitchen will be included in
cottage house. Mr. Egarian - There is no warming kitchen shown on the
architectural plans. Mr. Mann – Will the
Lake Valhalla Club agree that the extra parking will only be used on Memorial
Day, July 4th and Labor Day.
Donald Bauman - 10 Lake Shore Dr. - sworn
Objects to the location of the volley ball court. Yacht house on Vista does
not make sense. Should not park cars in the Glen.
Ken Nemeth - Vista Rd. - sworn
Live across from the club. Concerned
with current erosion and runoff. New
erosion since they back filled from the courts to the stream. Lost 10’ of property due to erosion. Main concern with additional parking creating
additional erosion.
Closed public portion for this witness at this time.
Carried with notice to 1/5/11 extension of time to act granted to 1/6/11
Mr. Marinello resumed the chair.
The Board returned to the Holiday at Montville hearing.
ZSPP/FC28-08-13-10 Holiday at Montville – 29
Vreeland Ave. – B: 52.03, L: 19, 21 & 22 –
site plan & variances - carried from 10/6/10 - Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 12/30/10
ZSOIL14-10 Holiday at Montville – 29 Vreeland Ave
- B: 52.03, L: 19, 21 & 22 – soil movement - Notice
Acceptable
Mr. Marinello - We had left
off with questions from the Board for Mr. Walker. Mr. Cartine - What is good about the duplexes. Mr. Schepis - The Use resolution specifically
requires the COAH units to be duplex units. Mr. Schepis - If the Board wants
the air conditioning units in the rear the applicant will agree to put them in
the rear. Mr. Cartine - With a rear
setback variance there would be an issue also.
Mr. Walker - Longview
would hear their neighbor’s air conditioners before they would hear them from
this property. Mr. Cartine - This
project looks pretty crowded to me. There
are too many units on too little space.
Mr. Ackerman - You said the number of units was approved, the number was
not approved because you knew you had to change the spacing between the
buildings. Mr. Walker - We lost 3 building when we went to duplexes. Dr. Kanoff
- Common driveways do not work.
Mr. Burgis - Clearly the
resolution under use calls for 12’ between buildings so no air conditioners or setback
will be 10’. Mr. Schepis - My client
will make sure there will be no air conditioners in the side setback. Mr. Burgis - Passive recreation is in the
center island according to the resolution but this has 3 buildings and a
gazebo. Mr. Schepis - Testimony was
given that we would put buildings in center island to meet COAH’s obligation
for duplexes. Mr. Schepis read Mr. Serrecchia’s memo into the record having
no issues with fire safety. Mr.
Buraszeski - The buildings in the center island are a problem. Mr. Walker - Can change shared driveway but
will require more turns which would be more difficult for some seniors to
manage. Mr. DiPiazza - The A/C units
should be to the rear of the units. Too
many units in the circle. Gazebo just
too close to the proposed units in the circle.
Mr. Shirkey - Wants to know basement exposure on walk out units. Mr. Marinello asked Mr. Walker if any fire
safety improvements would be called for in his professional opinion.
Open to the public for this
witness
Mr. Mizzone - Will still hear
A/C units.
The application was carried
with notice preserved to 1/5/11 with an extension of time to act to 1/6/11.
MINUTES:
Minutes of November 3, 2010
Eligible: Buraszeski,
Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by:
Buraszeski, Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Unanimous
INVOICES:
Pashman, Stein – Trust for:
$543.57, $1,337.50, $431.25, $437.50,
$168.75
Burgis Assoc – Trust for:
$250, $343.75, $593.75, $343.75, $125, $93.75, $312.50, $187.50, $187.50, $968.75, $156.25, $93.75, $93.75, $125
Omland Engineering – Trust
for: $250, $312.50, $62.50, $406.25, $93.75,
$125, $62.50, $62.50, $125,
$343.75, $125
Anderson & Denzler –
Trust for: $1,057.80, $690
Motion to approve made by: Hug,
Second by: Driscoll, Roll call: Unanimous
CORRESPONDENCE
None
RESOLUTIONS
ZC
24-06-21-09 Lodhi - 10 Old Lane – B:
21.01, L: 35.04 – extension of approval requested to 9/2/11 – Granted –
eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
Motion to approve: Buraszeski;
Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug,
Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
ZC27-09 Stein, David –1 Spring Ln. – B: 113, L: 48 – extension of approvals
requested to 11/4/11 – granted – eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
Motion to approve: Buraszeski;
Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug,
Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
ZC11-10
–Brittain & Foster – B: 52.02, L:
15 – 61 River Rd - variance front setback of 40.2’ vs 45’
& Building Coverage of 2,853 s.f. vs. 2,587 s.f. for 2nd story
addition/front porch addition – Approved –
Eligible: Buraszeski,
Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
Motion to approve: Buraszeski;
Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza,
Marinello
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 - Denied
Motion to approve: Buraszeski;
Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug,
Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
NEW
BUSINESS
NONE
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion
re: High School Students
Mr.
Marinello - I checked with the high school and they will be sending students.
Planning Board Liaison
report: Mr. Driscoll – no comments
Motion to go into closed session to discuss personnel issues made by:
Buraszeski; second Driscoll; Roll call: unanimous
Upon return from closed
session and there being no further business the board adjourned the meeting.
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of January 5, 2011.
_______________________________________
Jane Grogaard, Assistant Secretary
[1]
Certified to 11/4/09 hearing
|
