Board of Adjustment Minutes 12-1-10 Print E-mail

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

 
Last Updated ( Friday, 21 January 2011 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack